Aaaah yes... more psycho babble, personal attacks, poisoning the well fallacies, character assassinations and hypocracy from ART. What a surprise. You just love being an arm chair pop psychologist. Its fun watching you try. Im sure those god voices in your head must have lots to comment on. LMAO peace axeman
Microsoft Encyclopedia Encarta has an entry written by, lo and behold, Michael Martin, which states: Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/martin.htm Well well well...it seems at least one encyclopedia has a newer up to date definition. Further...an interesting email from positiveatheism.org editor: From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org> To: "Susan Roundtree" Subject: Re: Question Date: Friday, September 01, 2000 10:03 PM All people start out as atheists, because an atheist is one who lacks a god belief. No infant has the cognitive skills to understand claims for the existence of gods, so all infants are technically atheists. A common definition among modern day atheists. Apparently...Websters needs to catch up. peace axeman
Axe this is your example of a fair argument? You take atheist quotes out of context, you take my quotes out of context. You created the biggest strawman with your medical expert non issue I have ever seen. It has been very entertaining, as I do my system programming but, alas, I can no longer waste any more time. When you try your first case, I suggest you bring your Blacks law dictionary, your civil procedure manual and your Haight and Kotchett or Immwinkelreid on evidence ---you are going to need it.
Now for the juicy stuff: From the book by George H. Smith Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prominent atheists have defended for many years the view that an atheist is a person who lacks theistic belief. Baron d'Holbach took this view when he argued, "All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God"[1] Charles Bradlaugh, Britain's most important crusader for atheism, upheld a similar position, noting that "no position is more continuously misrepresented" than atheism. Bradlaugh stated: "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God."[2] ............. This negative definition of atheism carried over into the twentieth century, especially among British atheists. When a critic accused atheists of dogmatism for positively denying the existence of God, G.W. Foote challenged the critic "to refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God." Foote continued: "Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the 'A' before 'Theist' really means."[6] ............ If one believes in a god, then one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist -- he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God.[8] Chapman Cohen, Primitive Survivals in Modern Thought (London, 1935). ----------- Flint concluded, "The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less."[10] -------------- As we have seen, this positive definition of atheism is not the most common one, nor the traditional one -- not, that is, if we consult what most atheists have really said rather than listen to uniformed critics who tell us what atheists should have said. The purely negative definition -- atheism as the absence of theistic belief -- has a better pedigree than either the positive definition or the compromise (the rejection of theistic belief) defended by Edwards. --------------------------- One of the few modem philosophers to embrace the negative definition of atheism is Antony Flew in his article, "The Presumption of Atheism." According to Flew, the prefix "a" in "atheism" should have the same negative meaning as in words like "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." "In this interpretation," Flew argues, "an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist."[20] ------------------------------ 1. It is sometimes claimed that the chief etymological problem in defining "atheism" is how to construe the prefix "a." Should we regard it as a term of privation meaning "without," or should we regard it as a term of negation meaning "no"? If we choose the privative meaning of "without," then "a-theism" will mean "without-theism" -- i.e., "without (or lacking) belief in a god or gods." This clearly supports the definition of atheism as the absence of theistic belief. What if we construe the prefix "a" negatively to mean "no"? This has been preferred by those who wish to define atheism as the outright denial of God's existence. But consider: even the negative sense of "a" doesn't, by itself, give us this definition. "A-theism," with the negative "a," translates into "no-belief in a god or gods." Here again, we have an essentially privative definition -- atheism as the absence of theistic belief. ---------------------------------- And the final blow, winner by knock out: Perhaps atheists can find refuge from the tyranny of "conventional meaning" in what philosophers call "technical, definitions." Thus, biologists are permitted to offer their own definition of "life," for example, without being overly concerned whether laymen (the conventional majority) agree with, or even know of, their definition. Similarly, professed atheists may have the epistemological right to define atheism, in the technical sense, as the "absence of theistic belief," even if most laymen (i.e., theists) disagree with that definition. ----------------------------- And knockout punch #2: Or perhaps atheists can fall back on the rule of fundamentality, which says that a definition should identify the fundamental, or essential, attribute of the concept being defined. Obviously, the absence of theistic belief is more fundamental than the denial of theism, for the latter is a subset of the former. (One who denies the existence of God also lacks belief, but the reverse is not necessarily true: one who lacks belief in God does not necessarily deny its existence.) According to this reasoning, one who denies God's existence is a legitimate atheist, but he subscribes to a particular species of atheism. If, however, we construe atheism as the denial of God's existence, then the person who merely lacks theistic belief is not a real atheist, but an imposter. This exclusion by definition, it seems to me, is ungracious, and it shows ignorance of what important atheists have argued for many years. It seems there is WIDE historic support for the inclusion of this popular atheistic definition. Websters REALLY needs to catch up. Its obviously MISSING an important, more accurate definition of ATHEISM. peace axeman
Nonsense. Your sources clearly supported my case. There was nothing out of context. Not only that... but my medical example is further backed up by the writer in my previous post who uses THE EXACT same argument that biologists are allowed to use a more precise meaning for the word "life", and that the laymans dictionary does not override this. The argument is perfectly valid and makes sense. I have made a very strong case quoting a wide variety of experts who all agree that one of the proper definitions of atheism is "lacking belief in god". Your entire case rests on THE DICTIONARY as the end all to all discussions of definitions. This is beyond weak. It is perfectly reasonable to accept BETTER definitions outside of laymans dictionaries. Im sure you wouldnt argue LEGAL terms using a standard webster dictionary. YOU WOULD USE A LEGAL dictionary. But you are being INCONSISTENT because you DEMAND that the standard layman definition of atheism stands ABOVE other philosophical definitions used by experts in the field. Very weak indeed. peace axeman
When you try your first case, I suggest you bring your Blacks law dictionary,. Here you have snared yourself in hypocrisy. You refuse to allow me to use more precise atheistic philosopher based definitions of atheism, but at the same time suggest I bring a ***LEGAL*** dictionary to my first trial Busted.... following your logic, I should just bring a regular old LAYMANS dictionary, like websters, since it OBVIOUSLY is the end all to definitions, including legal definitions In case you didnt notice...lots of sarcasm in there Very inconsistent of you. peace axeman
http://www.agnostic-1.com/ Agnostic - Agnostos The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, "to not know." An agnostic is one who admits, "I don't know." The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover. Agnostic - Sitting on the Fence By definition, an agnostic is not committed to believing in or disbelieving in the existence of God. Nevertheless, while agnosticism claims to "sit on the fence," many agnostics are "practical atheists," in that they actively pursue the atheistic lifestyle; that is, they tend to subscribe to moral relativism and live out their lives without any concern for ultimate accountability. http://www.atheism-1.com/ Atheism - Defining the Terms There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.
After further review of the entire situation, I just had a revelation. One of the real questions of ontology, "is there a god," can be interpreted in a far different way. If we define whatever event or "cause" brought us to this point -- a point where humans have a consciousness and are able to think, then what we are really debating is not whether or not "god" exists but more importantly, what traits such a thing would have in relation to us. I'll define a first cause event as "god." If you do not believe in a first cause event, then I will define "god" to be whatever system of events took place to get us here. Now, at this point, the question of whether or not "god" exists is solved. God does indeed exist. However, we have now changed the question into, "what does this 'god' share in similarity with us?" The problem that has always existed in tandem with the god question is defining what god is. If I choose to define god as whatever first cause or sequence of events that brought me into existence, then I no longer need to prove god, but have succeeded in shifting the burden of knowledge to a point where I must now start to understand what god is, what the word "god" truly means to me, and if it has any relationship to a consciousness like my own -- or is it something so much greater than myself, that I cannot comprehend it at all. It would be like one of my liver cells trying to contemplate the universe that it resides in (my body) and not being able to expand outward (outside my body) to realize that it is just a small yet important segment to a much larger and more global system.
This is Scientology "atheist" "Multiverse" (Multiple Universes) theory, a true "revelation" to Mankind : http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/atack_ot3.html OT III - Scientologys "secret" course rewritten for beginners According to Scientology theory, we are all multiple personalities made up of hundreds of compacted extraterrestrial entities. We have reincarnated for 75 million years since this happened to us all. Scientology has claimed that this is a business trade secret... There has been great controversy, and massive litigation, concerning the Scientology cults once secret "Operating Thetan Section Three Course". To save the brain strain of reading this purportedly lethal material in the original Ronspeak, and to save any danger of litigation for violation of copyright, this version is humbly tendered as a gift to mankind... Scientologists believe that they have reincarnated from before the beginning of time. They believe that many interplanetary civilizations have existed. Hubbard restyled the spirit the "thetan". Before the beginning of time, thetans existed, separate from one another (thetans were not created they have existed for all time and indeed precede the creation of time). With the creation of energy and matter, thetans have gradually become trapped. The principal method of entrapment is through "implanting", where the thetan is hypnotised and given positive suggestions which limit its powers. This process, according to Hubbard has been going on in this universe for four quadrillion Years (4,000,000,000,000,000, rather than the mere 8-20,000,000 held by astrophysicists). However, <font color=red>this is just one universe in a series of several</font>. Scientology seeks to return the thetan's power by stripping away implants and using drills to heighten extrasensory perception and ability. The goal of these procedures is an "operating thetan" - a being who can act independently of his physical body, and can cause physical events to occur through sheer force of will. The "operating thetan" would be capable of dismissing illness and psychological disorder in others at will. The Scientologist generally undertakes hundreds of hours of preparation prior to taking the first section of the Operating Thetan level courses - OT 1 (a version of which is available on Karin Spainks homepage). OT 2 consists of over a hundred pages of handwritten lists of opposites, such as "create - create no". These are supposedly the basic positive suggestions from implants administered 75 million years ago. These implants were part of the so-called OT 3 incident. According to Hubbard, 75 million years ago, there was a confederation of 76 planets, including Earth. The "Galactic Confederation" (the title comes from the science fiction of E.E. 'Doc' Smith), was ruled by Xenu (also called "Xemu" by Hubbard). Overpopulation had become a serious problem, which Xenu resolved by murdering many of the inhabitants of the Confederation. Hubbard estimated that the 76 planets averaged 178 billion people each. The people were killed and the thetans (or spirits) gathered, frozen in a mixture of glycol and alcohol, and brought to Earth where they were placed near volcanoes which were exploded with hydrogen bombs. The thetans were gathered on "electronic ribbons", packaged together as clusters and given 36 days of implanting, to render them servile and incapable of decision. A cluster is a collection of body thetans containing a leader and an "alternate" leader. The cluster conceives itself to be an individual. According to OT 3, everyone on Earth is in fact a collection of such clusters (Hubbard says that each person doing OT 3 will find "hundreds" of body thetans - many victims of this course believe that they find millions). On OT 3, the individual finds "body thetans" by locating any sensation of pressure or mass in his or her body. This is addressed "telepathically" as a cluster, and taken through the cluster-making incident of 75 million years ago. Once this is done, the individual body thetans should be available to be taken through either the same incident or the incident of entry into this universe. This is called "incident one", and supposedly occured four quadrillion years ago. This incident is described in the materials as: "Loud snap - waves of light - chariot comes out, turns left and right - cherub comes out - blows horn, comes close - shattering series of snaps - cherub fades back (retreats) - blackness dumped on thetan." Most scientologists are unaware of the true definition of "cherub". The Scientologist spends days or years dealing with "body thetans" (I have known two people who "audited" this procedure almost every day for eleven years). Scientology materials of different dates assert that at the end of OT 3 the individual will be "stably exterior" (from his body - out of his head, it might be rephrased), free from "overwhelm" (i.e., nothing will ever overwhelm him emotionally again), and have total recall of his entire round of incarnations from four quadrillion years ago to the present. Secret materials seen only by those selling the course give the "end phenomenon" as a "big win" urging that the person be put onto the next course - where they pay by the hour - quickly. Anyone who encounters this material without having undertaken Scientology courses up to OT 2 will supposedly die from pneumonia. OT 3 is of course in substantial disagreement with conventional geology. Geologists hold that almost all of the volcanoes listed by Hubbard and both Hawaii and Los Palmas came into being far more recently than 75 million years ago. On a simple point of logic, it seems strange that none of these volcanoes was damaged by the explosion of the hydrogen bombs. Hubbard was taking barbiturates and drinking heavily when he wrote this material, according to letters he wrote at the time which are kept from scientologists by the management of Scientology.
It is theorized that primates today evolved from a common ancenstor genus, perhaps as much as 6-10 million years ago. The branching and lineage thereafter is in partial dispute. But the theme of common ancestry really is not. Do I mean that factual data support this theory? In part. The fossil record does. Is there data on record showing DNA changes, birth records, etc. for the generations going back 6 million years? No! But there is extremely strong evidence, facts geneticists would state, that trace back mitochondrial DNA to a common female 200,000 years. Mitochondrial DNA only passes on from the female. The web of life and our taxonomic constructs both reflect and influence evolutionary theory. The mechanism of heredity is well understood and not in dispute, even by the most diehard creationists.