Atheists have a religion they follow ----

1. Everyone is religious.
Did you ever notice that people often give their opinions about
religion but then caveat it by saying, “But I’m not a theologian”?
Well, the truth is everyone’s a theologian.  Some are more informed
theologians than others, but everyone has some set of religious
beliefs.  If we define religion as someone’s explanation of ultimate
reality—the origin, operation, meaning, and destiny of all things—
then
everyone is religious, including atheists.  While some people
devoutly
believe that God is the cause of all this, others are just as devout
in support of an atheistic explanation or that of some other
religious
worldview.  Even those who are devoutly agnostic or indifferent have
taken a religious position.  It’s not that they’ve never thought
about
an explanation for ultimate reality, it’s that they believe the
question is unknowable, undecided, or irrelevant.  That’s still a
religious position.


2. Everyone is a fundamentalist.
While Christians are often mocked for being fundamentalists, everyone
has fundamental beliefs about why things are the way they are and how
we should live in light of that.  Atheists, for example, believe that
there is no God; that life arose from non-life without any
intelligent
intervention; that there is no afterlife; and that science is the
supreme if not exclusive source of all truth. Those fundamental
beliefs usually result in moral fundamentals such as tolerance for
everything (except for those who don’t tolerate everything).  So the
question is not who is or isn’t a fundamentalist—everyone is.  The
question is “whose fundamentals are true?”


3. Everyone has faith.
If we define faith as believing something that lacks complete
evidence, then everyone has faith.  Since no human is all-knowing,
all
of us—even atheists—require some degree of faith to believe our
religious fundamentals.  Those that have more evidence for their
fundamentals, require less faith-- those with less evidence need more
faith.

Wrong on all three counts.  To be religious your first need a religion
we have none.

To have faith in the religious sense you again first need a religion in
which to believe and we have none.

Fundamentalism is the belief in old and traditional forms of religion,
or the belief that what is written in a holy book, such as the Bible, is
completely true.   We have no belief in either any religion or its
scriptures.

We do not believe that all life forms came from nothing but that they
evolved by natural selection over the billions of years the Earth has
been in existence. It is the fundamentalists who believe that their god
created everything from nothing.   

We do not yet know, and may never know how the universe came into being
or precisely how life on Earth began but the big bang, constant state or
seeding from space theories are all better explanations than a sky
fairy.

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:19:22 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"
 wrote:

>Atheists have a religion they follow ----

Liar.

Snipped the usual daveshite

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 3. Everyone has faith.
> If we define faith as believing something that lacks complete
> evidence, then everyone has faith.

Brilliant!

Dave - this appears to be an admission that you have a complete lack 
of any evidence for your faith!

Which is what we have been trying to point out for ages, despite 
claims for you that you had posted it before.

You have just effectively undermined your own position.

Game, set and match to the atheists!

regards, Ian

In article <wrydneBUnp11nMPVnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
 Ian Smith  wrote:

> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > 3. Everyone has faith.
> > If we define faith as believing something that lacks complete
> > evidence, then everyone has faith.
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> Dave - this appears to be an admission that you have a complete lack 
> of any evidence for your faith!

You are twisting his words. He said 'lacks complete evidence', not 
'completely lacks evidence'.

I think even Dave deserves fair play, don't you?

Alwyn

The message 
from Alwyn  contains these words:

> You are twisting his words. He said 'lacks complete evidence', not 
> 'completely lacks evidence'.

He lacks any credible evidence and the best he has got is some second
hand unreliable hearsay evidence first recorded many decades later.

> I think even Dave deserves fair play, don't you?

After his deluge of lies and distortions I do not think he deserves
anything other than total contempt!

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

In article ,
 David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:

> The message 
> from Alwyn  contains these words:
> 
> > You are twisting his words. He said 'lacks complete evidence', not 
> > 'completely lacks evidence'.
> 
> He lacks any credible evidence and the best he has got is some second
> hand unreliable hearsay evidence first recorded many decades later.

No doubt, but this is not the point.

> > I think even Dave deserves fair play, don't you?
> 
> After his deluge of lies and distortions I do not think he deserves
> anything other than total contempt!

Common decency requires that one's words should be interpreted 
accurately and not tendentiously, whoever one is.

For you or me, Dave in Lake Villa is just a sequence of letters on a 
screen. We are entitled to have utter contempt for the views thereby 
expressed but not, I think, for whatever person might be behind them.

Alwyn

The message 
from Alwyn  contains these words:

> For you or me, Dave in Lake Villa is just a sequence of letters on a 
> screen. We are entitled to have utter contempt for the views thereby 
> expressed but not, I think, for whatever person might be behind them.

In this case both are fully justified! 

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

On Jun 22, 1:47 am, Alwyn  wrote:

> I think even Dave deserves fair play, don't you?
>
> Alwyn

After seeing years of his fake quotes passed off as "truth", years of
false and falacious statements passed off as "truth", years of mined
and edited quotes passed off as "truth", years of ignoring any and all
evidence that his "truth" isn't....

Now, what's the word I'm looking for?

Oh yeah...............NO

Alwyn wrote:
> In article <wrydneBUnp11nMPVnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
>  Ian Smith  wrote:
> 
>> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Everyone has faith.
>>> If we define faith as believing something that lacks complete
>>> evidence, then everyone has faith.
>> Brilliant!
>>
>> Dave - this appears to be an admission that you have a complete lack 
>> of any evidence for your faith!
> 
> You are twisting his words. He said 'lacks complete evidence', not 
> 'completely lacks evidence'.
> 
> I think even Dave deserves fair play, don't you?

I completely agree. However, Dave's statement is remarkable nonetheless.

If we look at his lack of will to provide any evidence whatsoever, 
and his unwillingness to point to any of the evidence he claims to 
have provided at some point in the past and then look at this 
admission that his faith "lacks complete evidence" then this does 
rate as an amazing admission.

We need to look his admission in context. There is a legal concept 
of looking at the words and judging whether the various possible 
alternative meanings have any bearing on the current concept. If we 
were to read his words as meaning "not quite 100% evidence" then 
this would have no meaning in this context. You can exclude an 
interpretation of words that can have no meaning in the context.

My kids' old jigsaw puzzle that is missing one piece is still 
clearly a red London bus under Big Ben and no "faith" is required to 
interpret the subject. That is the status of evolution - we can't 
claim to have complete evidence, but can be absolutely clear as to 
what the picture is and we can be clear that the picture can't be 
anything else.

Dave's admission is therefore clear - he needs faith to make the 
interpretation that there is a god, there must be a significant 
portion of this evidence missing and therefore requires 
interpretation, and he can provide none of the evidence that he 
claims does exist.

So, now he admits that pieces of the jigsaw are missing, can't show 
us any single piece of the jigsaw that does exists, or tell us of 
anyone who knows where it might be, but he knows of a book, written 
by unknown individuals that claim to have been told that there was 
someone who met an individual that once saw one of the pieces. And 
he abandoned his atheism on the strength of this evidence?

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:VbadnaETtLNU78LVRVnyigA@posted.plusnet...
> Alwyn wrote:

>> You are twisting his words. He said 'lacks complete evidence', not 
>> 'completely lacks evidence'.
>>
>> I think even Dave deserves fair play, don't you?
>
> I completely agree. However, Dave's statement is remarkable nonetheless.

> If we look at his lack of will to provide any evidence whatsoever, and his 
> unwillingness to point to any of the evidence he claims to have provided 
> at some point in the past and then look at this admission that his faith 
> "lacks complete evidence" then this does rate as an amazing admission.


> We need to look his admission in context. There is a legal concept of 
> looking at the words and judging whether the various possible alternative 
> meanings have any bearing on the current concept. If we were to read his 
> words as meaning "not quite 100% evidence" then this would have no meaning 
> in this context. You can exclude an interpretation of words that can have 
> no meaning in the context.

> My kids' old jigsaw puzzle that is missing one piece is still clearly a 
> red London bus under Big Ben and no "faith" is required to interpret the 
> subject. That is the status of evolution - we can't claim to have complete 
> evidence, but can be absolutely clear as to what the picture is and we can 
> be clear that the picture can't be anything else.

> Dave's admission is therefore clear - he needs faith to make the 
> interpretation that there is a god, there must be a significant portion of 
> this evidence missing and therefore requires interpretation, and he can 
> provide none of the evidence that he claims does exist.


> So, now he admits that pieces of the jigsaw are missing, can't show us any 
> single piece of the jigsaw that does exists, or tell us of anyone who 
> knows where it might be, but he knows of a book, written by unknown 
> individuals that claim to have been told that there was someone who met an 
> individual that once saw one of the pieces. And he abandoned his atheism 
> on the strength of this evidence?


Nice post ian.
I like the analogy of the jigsaw very much...
And I wonder in view of his (dilv) style, content (..or lack of!) and 
general manner and strategy whether he DOES disserve any "fair play" 
actually.
His mindless, myopic behaviour is approaching those of a troll frankly..


Mark

On Jun 23, 3:34 am, "mark"  wrote:

> >> I think even Dave deserves fair play, don't you?
>
> > I completely agree. However, Dave's statement is remarkable nonetheless> > If we look at his lack of will to provide any evidence whatsoever, and his
> > unwillingness to point to any of the evidence he claims to have provided
> > at some point in the past and then look at this admission that his faith
> > "lacks complete evidence" then this does rate as an amazing admission.
> > We need to look his admission in context. There is a legal concept of
> > looking at the words and judging whether the various possible alternative
> > meanings have any bearing on the current concept. If we were to read his
> > words as meaning "not quite 100% evidence" then this would have no meaning
> > in this context. You can exclude an interpretation of words that can have
> > no meaning in the context.
> > My kids' old jigsaw puzzle that is missing one piece is still clearly a
> > red London bus under Big Ben and no "faith" is required to interpret the
> > subject. That is the status of evolution - we can't claim to have complete
> > evidence, but can be absolutely clear as to what the picture is and we can
> > be clear that the picture can't be anything else.
> > Dave's admission is therefore clear - he needs faith to make the
> > interpretation that there is a god, there must be a significant portion of
> > this evidence missing and therefore requires interpretation, and he can
> > provide none of the evidence that he claims does exist.
> > So, now he admits that pieces of the jigsaw are missing, can't show us any
> > single piece of the jigsaw that does exists, or tell us of anyone who
> > knows where it might be, but he knows of a book, written by unknown
> > individuals that claim to have been told that there was someone who met an
> > individual that once saw one of the pieces. And he abandoned his atheism
> > on the strength of this evidence?
>
> Nice post ian.
> I like the analogy of the jigsaw very much...
> And I wonder in view of his (dilv) style, content (..or lack of!) and
> general manner and strategy whether he DOES disserve any "fair play"
> actually.
> His mindless, myopic behaviour is approaching those of a troll frankly..
>
> Mark

APPROACHING?
That's a bit on an understatement.

mark wrote:

> And I wonder in view of his (dilv) style, content (..or lack of!) and 
> general manner and strategy whether he DOES disserve any "fair play" 
> actually.
> His mindless, myopic behaviour is approaching those of a troll frankly..
> 

I agree.

However, I wouldn't want to be accused of not playing fair and 
similarly I won't descend to abusive behaviour. This for two 
reasons: firstly, I have moral standards and secondly, that would 
only give Dave justification for being able to regard himself as 
morally superior in some way - simply re-enforcing his prejudices.

It is difficult to know where to draw the line - I hesitated to call 
Dave a liar, but he has clearly demonstrated that he is quite 
willing to tell untruths and then repeat them even when the 
untruthful nature has been pointed out.

I don't want to be accused of not calling a spade a shovel.

regards, Ian

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:
> 
> And I wonder in view of his (dilv) style, content (..or lack of!) and 
> general manner and strategy whether he DOES disserve any "fair play" 
> actually.

We are decent people, no? We give fair play to all, even if we sometimes 
suspect they might not deserve it.

It may not have escaped your attention that people from 
<news:uk.religion.christian> peruse this newsgroup and sometimes report 
back that this is a lawless place, thus reinforcing people's stereotypes 
about atheists. We should not give them ammunition.

Alwyn