On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:14:34 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 18:43:43 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
><morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>
>>On 7/2/2021 11:00 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> Actually, it arguably does: it makes having a "well-regulated militia"
>>> the/reason/ for the right. No militia, no right.
>>
>>Not in any way, shape, or form.
>
>It amazes me that people who claim to be liberals can accept that "the
>people" means "a well regulated militia", without ever once thinking
>that if that is the case that well regulated militia is going to make
>their woke asses an holy Hell, and since they aren't members of it
>there isn't squat they can do about it.

If you glance at
<https://home.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm>
you will see that a well-regulated militia /is/ the people.

Even the law /defining/ the militia quoted here by another makes it
clear that all males (at least), of proper age, are /members of the
militia/.

Are you male? Are you a US Citizen? Are you an adult? Congratulations!
Unless you are actually serving as a uniformed service member, you are
part of the militia. By law.

No matter what your political/social/whatever beliefs may be.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:acv8eghfji1veqp22krstat1i18451vfin@4ax.com:

> Why someone who insists that the 2nd Amendment has /nothing to
> do with the militia/ would /quote a law defining the militia/ I
> have no idea.

Because mocking you on two things your completely wrong about is
twice as much fun as only mocking you on one.
>
> But perhaps I am confusing two different people here ...

You're confusing a lot of things, being a fucking idiot.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:21:23 -0700, Alan Baker
> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-07-05 4:46 p.m., Jay E. Morris wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2021 9:09 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> of course there is an age limit, because there was an age limit for
>>>> membership in the militia, and the 2nd Amendment is about the militia
>>>
>>> Not in any way, shape, or form.
>>>
>>
>> I really don't get it.
>>
>> I think that 2A as written is pretty much nuts...
>>
>> ...but I can read English.
>
> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
> possible explanation.
>

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>> possible explanation.
>>
>
> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
"deeply held religious beliefs".

On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
>>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>>> possible explanation.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>
> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
> stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
> criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
> "deeply held religious beliefs".
>

Ah.

That will be a problem with me...

....because I have none.

:-)

On 7/07/21 9:20 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
>>>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>>>> possible explanation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>
>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
>> stupidity as it restricts his thinking  so when arguing, he tries to
>> criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
>> "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>
>
> Ah.
>
> That will be a problem with me...
>
> ...because I have none.
>
> :-)

Please re-read his words above. Because you have an opinion and he is
running out of counterarguments he rubbishes your opinion by classifying
it as a "deeply held religious belief". In other words, your opinion is
wrong because it is based on an intransigent faith which is not
responding to his reasoning.

Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:sc38v1$1bv$1@dont-email.me:

> On 7/07/21 9:20 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>>>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>>>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that
>>> this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking  so when
>>> arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on other
>>> matters by classifying them as "deeply held religious
>>> beliefs".
>>>
>>
>> Ah.
>>
>> That will be a problem with me...
>>
>> ...because I have none.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Please re-read his words above. Because you have an opinion and
> he is running out of counterarguments he rubbishes your opinion
> by classifying it as a "deeply held religious belief". In other
> words, your opinion is wrong because it is based on an
> intransigent faith which is not responding to his reasoning.
>
It's pretty sad, when *Baker* is the smart, rational one.

(And you abuse the hell out of the word "reasoning.")

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
>>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>>> possible explanation.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>
>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
>stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
>criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
>"deeply held religious beliefs".

IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.

It all relates to Karl Popper.

And who says its an insult?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:01:35 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 7/07/21 9:20 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
>>>>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>>>>> possible explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
>>> stupidity as it restricts his thinking  so when arguing, he tries to
>>> criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
>>> "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>>
>>
>> Ah.
>>
>> That will be a problem with me...
>>
>> ...because I have none.
>>
>> :-)
>
>Please re-read his words above. Because you have an opinion and he is
>running out of counterarguments he rubbishes your opinion by classifying
>it as a "deeply held religious belief". In other words, your opinion is
>wrong because it is based on an intransigent faith which is not
>responding to his reasoning.

You do realize that an opinion "based on an intransigent faith" is a
very good way to define "deeply-held religious belief", do you not?

But my point to the person I was responding to is that he might find
it helpful, when reason does not work, to consider the possibility
that that is what he is dealing with.

That just suggesting this /possibility/ triggered you is very ...
revealing ..., don't you think?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 17:00:38 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:01:35 +1200, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On 7/07/21 9:20 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
> >>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
> >>>>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
> >>>>> possible explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
> >>>
> >>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
> >>> stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
> >>> criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
> >>> "deeply held religious beliefs".
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ah.
> >>
> >> That will be a problem with me...
> >>
> >> ...because I have none.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> >Please re-read his words above. Because you have an opinion and he is
> >running out of counterarguments he rubbishes your opinion by classifying
> >it as a "deeply held religious belief". In other words, your opinion is
> >wrong because it is based on an intransigent faith which is not
> >responding to his reasoning.
> You do realize that an opinion "based on an intransigent faith" is a
> very good way to define "deeply-held religious belief", do you not?
>
> But my point to the person I was responding to is that he might find
> it helpful, when reason does not work, to consider the possibility
> that that is what he is dealing with.
>
> That just suggesting this /possibility/ triggered you is very ...
> revealing ..., don't you think?

For your opinions to be not influenced by reasonable
argument is not exclusively a behaviour of religion.
Indeed, the ability to listen to reason has to be learned.
Often it isn't. As some people are illiterate, likewise
some people are unreasonable. Born that way;
everyone is.

Then of course there's the case where accepting an
argument brings you disadvantage. So "It is difficult
to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it!"
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/>

Indeed, religious certainty of a reasonably intelligent
person may be only the belief that a failure to be certain
will be punished severely and probably terminally by the
gods, or by your neighbours. Both of whom can be
pretty unforgiving.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 12:00:38 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:01:35 +1200, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On 7/07/21 9:20 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
> >>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
> >>>>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
> >>>>> possible explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
> >>>
> >>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
> >>> stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
> >>> criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
> >>> "deeply held religious beliefs".
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ah.
> >>
> >> That will be a problem with me...
> >>
> >> ...because I have none.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> >Please re-read his words above. Because you have an opinion and he is
> >running out of counterarguments he rubbishes your opinion by classifying
> >it as a "deeply held religious belief". In other words, your opinion is
> >wrong because it is based on an intransigent faith which is not
> >responding to his reasoning.
> You do realize that an opinion "based on an intransigent faith" is a
> very good way to define "deeply-held religious belief", do you not?
>
> But my point to the person I was responding to is that he might find
> it helpful, when reason does not work, to consider the possibility
> that that is what he is dealing with.
>
> That just suggesting this /possibility/ triggered you is very ...
> revealing ..., don't you think?
> --

There are non-theistic religions, though they may be based
on woo-woo, nonetheless.

I'm not the only person to have accused "dialectical materialism"
of being an essentially religious dogma.

--
Kevin R

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:51:04 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> I'm not the only person to have accused "dialectical materialism"
> of being an essentially religious dogma.

No, you are not. And in some ways it is, but in other ways, it
fails to be religious, however dogmatic it may be.

John Savard

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8akmr02peffbhpkjs2@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this
>>is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he
>>tries to criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>>classifying them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
>
> IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.

For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held religious
belief." And they *really* hate it when someone points that out.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:iojbegpc1cl97rjdkifvqudc5hq8nqn663@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:01:35 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/07/21 9:20 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
>>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>>>>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>>>>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that
>>>> this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking� so when
>>>> arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on other
>>>> matters by classifying them as "deeply held religious
>>>> beliefs".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah.
>>>
>>> That will be a problem with me...
>>>
>>> ...because I have none.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>Please re-read his words above. Because you have an opinion and
>>he is running out of counterarguments he rubbishes your opinion
>>by classifying it as a "deeply held religious belief". In other
>>words, your opinion is wrong because it is based on an
>>intransigent faith which is not responding to his reasoning.
>
> You do realize that an opinion "based on an intransigent faith"
> is a very good way to define "deeply-held religious belief", do
> you not?

You do realize that he was explaining (correctly) your perspective,
do you not?

Because only *you* would call the process that sloshes around in
your empty head as "reasoning."
>
> But my point to the person I was responding to is that he might
> find it helpful, when reason does not work, to consider the
> possibility that that is what he is dealing with.

Certainly the case with you.
>
> That just suggesting this /possibility/ triggered you is very
> ... revealing ..., don't you think?

It has revelaed your inaiblity to interact with reality.

Not that anybody need a reminder.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:fce8c996-cb53-46ba-b165-
dfa7fbcc48c6n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:51:04 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> I'm not the only person to have accused "dialectical materialism"
>> of being an essentially religious dogma.
>
> No, you are not. And in some ways it is, but in other ways, it
> fails to be religious, however dogmatic it may be.
>
Depends on who gets to do the defining. I'm reminded to the claims of
spamemrs all over the world:

"Spam is that which I don't do."

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2021-07-07 1:42 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8akmr02peffbhpkjs2@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>>>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>>>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this
>>> is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he
>>> tries to criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>>> classifying them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>
>> IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>
> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held religious
> belief." And they *really* hate it when someone points that out.
>

How can a lack of belief be a "belief" of any kind?

On 8/07/21 4:00 am, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:01:35 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/07/21 9:20 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-06 2:00 p.m., Titus G wrote:
>>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
>>>>>> it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>>>>>> possible explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this is
>>>> stupidity as it restricts his thinking  so when arguing, he tries to
>>>> criticise people's opinions on other matters by classifying them as
>>>> "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah.
>>>
>>> That will be a problem with me...
>>>
>>> ...because I have none.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Please re-read his words above. Because you have an opinion and he is
>> running out of counterarguments he rubbishes your opinion by classifying
>> it as a "deeply held religious belief". In other words, your opinion is
>> wrong because it is based on an intransigent faith which is not
>> responding to his reasoning.
>
> You do realize that an opinion "based on an intransigent faith" is a
> very good way to define "deeply-held religious belief", do you not?

Good grief! You do realise that when I write "In other words" that what
follows is a redefinition of what was previously said. I suppose I
should thank you for your compliment but suspect it was unintended.

> But my point to the person I was responding to is that he might find
> it helpful, when reason does not work, to consider the possibility
> that that is what he is dealing with.

And my point is that you were avoiding reason when you suggest the
person you were responding to was arguing from a position of "deeply
held religious belief". It is politer but not dissimilar to Jibini's
irrational eruptions.

> That just suggesting this /possibility/ triggered you is very ...
> revealing ..., don't you think?

I was not triggered by your previously used tactic attempting evasion,
but responding to Alan Baker's "I haven't the foggiest idea what you're
talking about." His reply, (above), showed after my first post that he
still didn't understand so I re-explained my interpretation.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:49:23 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:

> Good grief! You do realise that when I write "In other words"

I doubt that in this discussion anyone is going to admit to realizing
anything; as far as effective communication goes, it is likely to go
around in circles, heading nowhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcwlGjDNkkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_2oTDG5kOo

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 7:15:25 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:49:23 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:

> > Good grief! You do realise that when I write "In other words"

> I doubt that in this discussion anyone is going to admit to realizing
> anything; as far as effective communication goes, it is likely to go
> around in circles, heading nowhere.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcwlGjDNkkw
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_2oTDG5kOo

And then there's always

https://archive.org/details/easy_journey_to_other_planets_-_sri_bhativedanta_swami_prabhupada

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
> >>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
> >>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
> >>
> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this
> >>is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he
> >>tries to criticise people's opinions on other matters by
> >>classifying them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
> >
> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held religious
> belief." And they *really* hate it when someone points that out.
> --

There's a difference between "we haven't encountered anything
we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such (a) being(s) absolutely
does not exist." - (or even can't!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

--
Kevin R

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:15:42 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:

>On 2021-07-07 1:42 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8akmr02peffbhpkjs2@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>>>>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>>>>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this
>>>> is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he
>>>> tries to criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>>>> classifying them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>>
>>> IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>
>> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held religious
>> belief." And they *really* hate it when someone points that out.
>>
>
>How can a lack of belief be a "belief" of any kind?

Case in point ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 07 Jul 2021 13:42:15 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8akmr02peffbhpkjs2@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>>>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>>>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this
>>>is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he
>>>tries to criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>>>classifying them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>
>> IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>
>For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held religious
>belief." And they *really* hate it when someone points that out.

But only for some.

And there are lots of others. These things pop up wherever people feel
strongly enough about something.

It is as if deeply-held religious beliefs were an intrinsic part of
human nature.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>> >>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>> >>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>> >>
>> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this
>> >>is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he
>> >>tries to criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>> >>classifying them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
>> >
>> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held religious
>> belief." And they *really* hate it when someone points that out.
>> --
>
>There's a difference between "we haven't encountered anything
>we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such (a) being(s) absolutely
>does not exist." - (or even can't!)
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being who had
verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of everything that
would happen in it and the ability to make any arbitrary change at
will, they would refuse address that entity as "God". Presumably part
of said being's plan is that they not do that after which they turn
into frogs or some such.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 9:02:16 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> There's a difference between "we haven't encountered anything
> we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such (a) being(s) absolutely
> does not exist." - (or even can't!)

Yes, this is true, at least in theory.

However, to some people with fervent literalist religious beliefs,
the world is divided into three categories:

- people who are members of our church;

- people who have the good excuse for not belonging to our church
that they belong to another church, which they falsely believe to be
the One True Church, so they think they will go to Hell if they switch
to ours, even though it's really the other way around (i.e., Jews,
Muslims, Mormons, Catholics...);

- pagans and others who have not yet heard the Gospel and are ripe
for conversion;

- everyone else, who are atheists who should be burned at the stake.

So the distinction between atheists, agnostics, and deists is quite
lost on them.

John Savard

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being who had
> verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of everything that
> would happen in it and the ability to make any arbitrary change at
> will, they would refuse address that entity as "God".

While that may not be rational, there certainly are cases somewhat
resembling that where the response would be reasonable.

For example, think of Olaf Stapledon's book, the one whose title
names He Who Shall Not Be Named.

Here, advanced humanity eventually locates the Creator of our
Universe. However, rather than being God, he is a finite, though
incredibly powerful, being... and what he did after creating our
Universe was what one should rationally expect of a creator -
after learning lessons from that, he went on to create another
more interesting Universe, and so on and so forth again and
again.

John Savard