Hard to say whether this is more or less disturbing than our typical American mass-shooting-style massacres--certainly less bloodshed, one would imagine--although in pure body count, this taxi-driver-turned-televangelist is out-murdering our gunmen* by exponentially-wide margins.

The late Christopher Hitchens (who died Thursday, December 15, 2011) famously implored--in the subtitle of his book-length indictment of all varieties of faith--that "religion poisons everything". But increasingly nowadays, he's dismissed as just another dead atheist. (Hitchens would correct that to "a-theist".)

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
-------------------------------------
* Or gunwomen, as in the recent Nashville case.
==================https://dnyuz.com/2023/05/14/he-told-followers-to-starve-to-meet-jesus-why-did-so-many-do-it/

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hard to say whether this is more or less disturbing than our typical American mass-shooting-style massacres--certainly less bloodshed, one would imagine--although in pure body count, this taxi-driver-turned-televangelist is out-murdering our gunmen* by exponentially-wide margins.

If the "Death Wish" series were remade with vengeance for a mass
shooting rather than a home-invasion/rape as the founding pretext,
I suppose the Bronson character would be described as

"out murdering our gunmen"...

> The late Christopher Hitchens (who died Thursday, December 15, 2011) famously implored--in the subtitle of his book-length indictment of all varieties of faith--that "religion poisons everything". But increasingly nowadays, he's dismissed as just another dead atheist. (Hitchens would correct that to "a-theist".)

(Making what distinction?

> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> -------------------------------------
> * Or gunwomen, as in the recent Nashville case.
> ===================
> https://dnyuz.com/2023/05/14/he-told-followers-to-starve-to-meet-jesus-why-did-so-many-do-it/

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis, and especially on this one.

He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e., "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.

STYBLE/Florida

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis,
> and especially on this one.
>
> He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten
> it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced
> it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e.,
> "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus
> semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of
> other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.

I on the other hand am "a theist" with the space all-important
and the accent on the "the" [with long E].

I consider it beyond any sane question that there must necessarily
be an ultimate source of all existence,however unknowable it appears
to be,and that "God" is defined as the actual answer to that question
(the Infinitely First Cause,as you have probably seen me refer to it)
rather than any particular person's or group's hypotheses about it.

> STYBLE/Florida

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 16:17:04 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hard to say whether this is more or less disturbing than our typical American mass-shooting-style massacres--certainly less bloodshed, one would imagine--although in pure body count, this taxi-driver-turned-televangelist is out-murdering our gunmen* by exponentially-wide margins.
>
> The late Christopher Hitchens (who died Thursday, December 15, 2011) famously implored--in the subtitle of his book-length indictment of all varieties of faith--that "religion poisons everything". But increasingly nowadays, he's dismissed as just another dead atheist. (Hitchens would correct that to "a-theist".)
>
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> -------------------------------------
> * Or gunwomen, as in the recent Nashville case.
> ===================
> https://dnyuz.com/2023/05/14/he-told-followers-to-starve-to-meet-jesus-why-did-so-many-do-it/

I am an atheist but I do differ about religion poisoning people and societies, making people irrational. The way I see it people are not irrational because they are religious. I believe people are religious because they are irrational, by human nature, by biology. If religion was abolished today another irrational belief system would emerge to take its place. That is, that religion is not a cause but an effect.

On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 06:09:14 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis, and especially on this one.
>
> He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e., "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.
>
> STYBLE/Florida

Important point on atheism. A-theism as in amoral. That is the definition. One does not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist but simply not to lack a belief in god(s). A believer that there are no god(s) would be an im-theist as in immoral.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Meteorite Debris wrote:
> I am an atheist but I do differ about religion poisoning people and societies, making people irrational. The way I see it people are not irrational because they are religious. I believe people are religious because they are irrational, by human nature, by biology. If religion was abolished today another irrational belief system would emerge to take its place. That is, that religion is not a cause but an effect.

Good point.

It reminds me of how the late historian Jean Fritz, back in 1978, told the story (in "Cricket Magazine") of Timothy Severin's journey in a leather curragh across the Atlantic. The purpose was to demonstrate that St. Brendan could, in fact, have beaten Columbus - and the Vikings - back in the early 6th century.

She pointed out that in the story of St. Brendan's journey, all sorts of supernatural events happen - because if they hadn't been included, no one would would have cared or paid attention! People just craved excitement.

Quote:

"If we find it hard to believe all of St. Brendan's story , the people of his time would have found it just as hard to believe Timothy Severin's. 'What? they would have said. 'No griffins? No giants? What kind of a trip is that?' "

Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 06:09:14 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis, and especially on this one.
>>
>> He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e., "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.
>>
>> STYBLE/Florida
>
> Important point on atheism. A-theism as in amoral. That is the definition.
> One does not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist but simply not
> to lack a belief in god(s). A believer that there are no god(s) would be an
> im-theist as in immoral.

Generally speaking,atheism is considered to be the positive belief
that there is no god,with simple lack of belief coming under agnosticism.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 03:38:36 UTC+9:30, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Meteorite Debris <peter.gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 06:09:14 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis, and especially on this one.
> >>
> >> He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e.., "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.
> >>
> >> STYBLE/Florida
> >
> > Important point on atheism. A-theism as in amoral. That is the definition.
> > One does not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist but simply not
> > to lack a belief in god(s). A believer that there are no god(s) would be an
> > im-theist as in immoral.
> Generally speaking,atheism is considered to be the positive belief
> that there is no god,with simple lack of belief coming under agnosticism.
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

An atheist like myself would know better what an atheist is. The word starts with an "A" is in "amoral, not "IM" as in immoral. The Greek prefix for "no" or "lacking", so atheism means No belief is god(s). Every baby is born an atheist and your cat is an atheist. An "imtheist" would better describe someone who believes there is no god(s). Why would anyone need to hold such a belief? There is no such thing as an "afairyest" who believes there are no fairies. Fairies are simply not in anyone's thoughts because no one believes there are fairies.

Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 03:38:36 UTC+9:30, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Meteorite Debris <peter.gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 06:09:14 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis, and especially on this one.
>> >>
>> >> He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e., "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.
>> >>
>> >> STYBLE/Florida
>> >
>> > Important point on atheism. A-theism as in amoral. That is the definition.
>> > One does not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist but simply not
>> > to lack a belief in god(s). A believer that there are no god(s) would be an
>> > im-theist as in immoral.
>> Generally speaking,atheism is considered to be the positive belief
>> that there is no god,with simple lack of belief coming under agnosticism.

> An atheist like myself would know better what an atheist is. The word starts
> with an "A" is in "amoral, not "IM" as in immoral. The Greek prefix for "no"
> or "lacking", so atheism means No belief is god(s). Every baby is born an
> atheist and your cat is an atheist. An "imtheist" would better describe
> someone who believes there is no god(s). Why would anyone need to hold such a
> belief? There is no such thing as an "afairyest" who believes there are no
> fairies. Fairies are simply not in anyone's thoughts because no one believes
> there are fairies.

I accept that you call yourself an atheist,but the term has been
used for those who explicitly deny that there is a god for longer
than any of us have been around,and appropriating it for (only)
those who simply don't have an explicit belief when there are other
words for that does not aid understanding.

>> -=-=-
>> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
>> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
>

Well, I'm certainly no authority on atheism, and in fact am NOT one--although I wouldn't necessarily NEED be one to constitute "expert" status on the question; all I would need would be a thorough familiarity with the doctrine, its numerous variants (and their implications), which are seriously disparate in nuance as to how one arrives at that intellectual conclusion. That is, not that "G-d is dead", as Nietzsche is endlessly (but somewhat erroneously) quoted. That is, not merely that G-d isn't now existant, but indeed never was. (Nietzsche was arguing that the IDEA of G-d is no more, not that The Almighty had some sort of supernaturally-fatal coronary.)

Though definitiely not an atheist, I AM most certainly an AGNOSTIC, and indeed a MILITANT one: that is, I resent it and vigorously object whenever someone mischaracterizes the agnostic position. Agnosticism is NOT an affirmation of the non-existence of any entity which might be arguably described as a god of any stripe. However, Sir Epstein, you're not far off the mark, when you describe a cat as being atheistic, merely because it--PRESUMABLY, as I can't read human OR feline minds--has no belief in a supernatural entity.

More to the various points at issue here, agnosticism is also often inaccurately described as merely a fence-sitting position whose central doctrine is merely "not professing to know whether or not G-d exists". Rather, properly understood and articulated, the agnostic argues that, given the way the cosmos and reality SEEMS to be structured to the extent of our best scientifically-established knowledge--whether or not any conscious* entity originated it in the first place--it seems to be FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain the purported existence of G-d. (Though MANY thinkers over the centuries--from St. Alselm and then Aquinas in the Middle Ages on--HAVE tabled quasi-mathematical [i.e., logic] proofs claiming to nail these things down.)

The only such effort I've ever seen that even ARGUABLY might establish a definitive answer to question are Godel's two famed Incompleteness Theorems (But ONLY IF either or both are indeed a real-world application of same, a downright GARGANTUAN "if", I'll grant).

Now, as every student who paid attention in basic algebra or geometry MUST understand to avoid chalking up an F in either subject, a THEOREM is NOT merely a some "theory" advanced (a la Oswald-was-a-patsy or 9/11/2001-was-an-inside-job) by someone. Rather, a theorem in fact is a mathematically-rigorous PROVEN assertion. (And thus every bit as ironclad a description of reality as is that most famed theorem of all, Pythagoras's right-triangle assertion. (Never mind that the Pythagorian Theorem--which has been INDEPENDENTLY proven at least 3,000 times**, beginning in antiquity--almost certainly wasn't first actually proven by the Greek philosophical icon HIMSELF, but rather by some anonymous member of his ancient eponymous cult.)

Now, Godel's two Incompleteness Theorems are hardly of the same level of sophistication as the theorems one encounters in the first years of the study of algebra or geometry. But both ARE, indeed, PROVEN assertions--and my understanding is that no mathematician has ever challenged that they were successfully proven, i.e., that some error isn't lurking somewhere in either. So the ONLY question remaining is whether the circumstance of either of Godel's tandem theorems are APPLICABLE to the premises engaged by this enduring "Does G-d exist?" debate. IF THEY ARE--and as an dedicated agnostic, by definition I doubt that either set of premises can EVER be established as applicable--then it IS in fact PROVEN that there CANNOT be ANY existent G-d. But again, I've never seen a convincing argument establishing that applicability. But yeah, IF IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED that Godel's Theorems are applicable, then the debate IS indeed settled, and in favor of the no-G-d position.

VITAL DISCLAIMER: I do NOT claim to understand most (much less all) of the logical mechanics of EITHER of those two formidably-complex Godel Incompleteness theorems--though I DO think I've got a decent handle on their various (and profound) implications. Now (and NOT incidentally), neither do I understand Andrew Wiles's celebrated proof***** of Fermat's Last Theorem.

But I HAVE seen it rather agnostically argued that at least one (or the other) Godel Theorem IS applicable--there, the general thrust being that humanity's being forever trapped WITHIN the reality set up for us (by either nature or some god-like entity) makes humankind by DEFINITION never in a position to adjudge any system-wide analysis of that system. (Kinda sorta like trying the behold the Mobius-strip nature of the strip whilst being two-dimensionally confined to the strip itself, no?)

Of course, NONE of this arcana explains why the British so habitually insist on truncating-down the ever-glorious (and 100%-theoretical!) discipline of mathematics merely to "maths".

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
==================* Consciousness on the part of the Almighty is an absolutely essential quality of anything (uh--better make that "anyOne") described by ANY believer as "G-d"; that is, if G-d indeed exists but somehow doesn't KNOW He or She or It is in fact G-d (as argued by those who assert that "nature is G-d"--thus that a tree or a boulder or even a solitary electron stands as an EMBODIMENT and not merely a manifestation of such a "god"), then the entire discussion descends into utter absurdity, a circumstance which logically-based types should never condone, even by merely conversationally engaging such untenable nonsense.
** The clever one of those 3,000-odd proofs--and one of the more elegant--I've ever seen was the work of a young fellow who in time would be arguably the greatest mind ever to occupy the White House. I refer to James Garfield, a precocious polymath*** who served as a Union commander during the Civil War and who would sometimes dazzle folks by writing sentences in Greek with his right hand while simultaneously inscribing Latin translations of same with his left! Future-POTUS Garfield's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem was based on trapezoids, and when I stumbled upon it--and then scrutinized every step of it, as it is hardly of Godelian or Wiles-ian complexity--in an advanced algebra textbook during my junior year of high school in 1971, I came away with even MORE respect for the rather-pointlessly****-assassinated President, a remarkable historical figure I'd been intrigued by ever since 4th Grade in 1964 when I first read his World Book Encyclopedia entry in its entirety.
*** A noun which sure SOUNDS like a mathematical term, but in fact TAINT one; consult Merriam-Webster should you doubt.
**** Well, soon-hanged-assassin Charles Guiteau WOULD have disputed that his deadly deed [inside the terminal of the now-long-razed old District of Columbia train station] was pointless--as in its aftermath, Guiteau DID famously declare that he [Guiteau] was solidly "a Stalwart", and that [GOP conventioneers' veep choice of Stalwart] Chester Arthur was "now President"...though it would take six weeks for the mortally-wounded Garfield to expire, some five weeks longer than President McKinley's own surviving post-shooting eight days in Buffalo in 1901. (All of which EVEN THOUGH supposedly-Vermont-born Vice President Arthur JUST POSSIBLY had in fact been born across border in Canadian territory, and thus was technically--but constitutionally!--ineligible from birth for EITHER national office.)
***** I've seen a couple respected mathematicians claim there IS actually a mistake (or even two) buried somewhere deep inside Wiles's topologically-based proof, which I gather ended up running some 300-odd pages. Me, though I'm fairly well-acquainted in principle with the endlessly fascinating branch of mathematics called topology--the realm of Mobius strips, Klein bottles, fifth-color-demanding political maps, etc.--I sure ain't no topologist by ANY stretch...and am therefore, uh, AGNOSTIC on the question as to whether Wiles indeed DID successfully prove Fermat's legendarily-confounding marginalia assertion.

ADDENDUM:

Oh, and while [but NOT Wiles!] we're on the endlessly-fascinating subject of G-d's possible existence, here's my first-verse-and-chorus rewrite of one-hit-wonder band The Rainmakers's quite witty tune, "Let My People Go-Go", which I enjoy performing* for pals:

Well, Moses climbed up on Mt. Sinai
(Had to get the lowdown from On High)
He told The Almighty,
"Lord, we ALL 'put the bomp'
But, please, 'pray'-tell just WHY--I-I-I ?"
"I didn't put you there to tremble!
Nor I didn't place you down there to fret or whine;
I put you on that planet to LOVE one another!
Now run along, son...
Still...HAVE A GOOD TIME !!!

So LET MY PEOPLE GO-GO!
You must let my people go!
Just LET MY PEOPLE GO-GO !
(And dance all night, to rock & roll)
Amen!

STYBLE/Florida
============* Self-contained as a mercifully-brief, single-verse song--and rendered from the low-rise, too-small-for-duets stage inside Stately Styble Manor** condo ZANADU***, a performance platform situated between the baby-grand piano and the keyboard stand.
** A too-obvious allusion to Bruce Wayne's TV manse above The Batcave.
*** You can probably guess why I pointedly misspelled Citizen Kane's own Florida "Xanadu" with a Z.

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm certainly no authority on atheism, and in fact am NOT
> one--although I wouldn't necessarily NEED be one to constitute "expert"
> status on the question; all I would need would be a thorough familiarity
> with the doctrine, its numerous variants (and their implications), which are
> seriously disparate in nuance as to how one arrives at that intellectual
> conclusion. That is, not that "G-d is dead", as Nietzsche is endlessly (but
> somewhat erroneously) quoted. That is, not merely that G-d isn't now
> existant, but indeed never was. (Nietzsche was arguing that the IDEA of G-d
> is no more, not that The Almighty had some sort of supernaturally-fatal
> coronary.)

I note that you engage fairly consistently in the Orthodox-Jewish-American
trope of substituting a hyphen for the "o" in "God".
For me this is a matter of mistranslation...while Judaism has a doctrinal
aversion toward outright pronunciation of one particularly holy one of
its many names for God,the English "God" should be seen as a reference to
the general idea and not a specific translation of that unspeakably holy
particular name,and thus not to be seen as impious to render in full.

> Though definitiely not an atheist, I AM most certainly an AGNOSTIC, and
> indeed a MILITANT one: that is, I resent it and vigorously object whenever
> someone mischaracterizes the agnostic position. Agnosticism is NOT an
> affirmation of the non-existence of any entity which might be arguably
> described as a god of any stripe. However, Sir Epstein, you're not far off
> the mark, when you describe a cat as being atheistic, merely because

It is Mr. Debris,not I,who described felines as atheist...some would
describe them as self-deifying.

> it--PRESUMABLY, as I can't read human OR feline minds--has no belief in a
> supernatural entity.
>
> More to the various points at issue here, agnosticism is also often
> inaccurately described as merely a fence-sitting position whose central
> doctrine is merely "not professing to know whether or not G-d exists".
> Rather, properly understood and articulated, the agnostic argues that, given
> the way the cosmos and reality SEEMS to be structured to the extent of our
> best scientifically-established knowledge--whether or not any conscious*
> entity originated it in the first place--it seems to be FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE to
> ascertain the purported existence of G-d. (Though MANY thinkers over the
> centuries--from St. Alselm and then Aquinas in the Middle Ages on--HAVE
> tabled quasi-mathematical [i.e., logic] proofs claiming to nail these things
> down.)

From my perspective it is flatly impossible for there NOT to be
an Infinitely First Cause,as no existence can exist unless it is
contingent on the IFC's existence...while the unknowability of the
IFC can be freely affirmed,no system of logic whose first foundation
is not the necessity of the IFC can stand.
No amount of theories about the IFC being disproven can ever open
the door to the idea of there NOT being an IFC.

> The only such effort I've ever seen that even ARGUABLY might establish a
> definitive answer to question are Godel's two famed Incompleteness Theorems
> (But ONLY IF either or both are indeed a real-world application of same, a
> downright GARGANTUAN "if", I'll grant).
>
> Now, as every student who paid attention in basic algebra or geometry MUST
> understand to avoid chalking up an F in either subject, a THEOREM is NOT
> merely a some "theory" advanced (a la Oswald-was-a-patsy or
> 9/11/2001-was-an-inside-job) by someone. Rather, a theorem in fact is a
> mathematically-rigorous PROVEN assertion. (And thus every bit as ironclad a
> description of reality as is that most famed theorem of all, Pythagoras's
> right-triangle assertion. (Never mind that the Pythagorian Theorem--which
> has been INDEPENDENTLY proven at least 3,000 times**, beginning in
> antiquity--almost certainly wasn't first actually proven by the Greek
> philosophical icon HIMSELF, but rather by some anonymous member of his
> ancient eponymous cult.)
>
> Now, Godel's two Incompleteness Theorems are hardly of the same level of
> sophistication as the theorems one encounters in the first years of the study
> of algebra or geometry. But both ARE, indeed, PROVEN assertions--and my
> understanding is that no mathematician has ever challenged that they were
> successfully proven, i.e., that some error isn't lurking somewhere in either.
> So the ONLY question remaining is whether the circumstance of either of
> Godel's tandem theorems are APPLICABLE to the premises engaged by this
> enduring "Does G-d exist?" debate. IF THEY ARE--and as an dedicated
> agnostic, by definition I doubt that either set of premises can EVER be
> established as applicable--then it IS in fact PROVEN that there CANNOT be ANY
> existent G-d. But again, I've never seen a convincing argument establishing
> that applicability. But yeah, IF IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED that Godel's
> Theorems are applicable, then the debate IS indeed settled, and in favor of
> the no-G-d position.

No system of definition under which it is possible for there to be no IFC
can ever be valid.The IFC is defined as the ultimate answer to why anything
exists,and if the IFC does not exist,nothing can exist...that anything
exists places the existence of the IFC beyond sane question.

> VITAL DISCLAIMER: I do NOT claim to understand most (much less all) of the
> logical mechanics of EITHER of those two formidably-complex Godel
> Incompleteness theorems--though I DO think I've got a decent handle on their
> various (and profound) implications. Now (and NOT incidentally), neither do
> I understand Andrew Wiles's celebrated proof***** of Fermat's Last Theorem.
>
> But I HAVE seen it rather agnostically argued that at least one (or the
> other) Godel Theorem IS applicable--there, the general thrust being that
> humanity's being forever trapped WITHIN the reality set up for us (by either
> nature or some god-like entity) makes humankind by DEFINITION never in a
> position to adjudge any system-wide analysis of that system. (Kinda sorta
> like trying the behold the Mobius-strip nature of the strip whilst being
> two-dimensionally confined to the strip itself, no?)

Thus,any claim that there is or could be no IFC is a byproduct of
thinking in too few dimensions.

> Of course, NONE of this arcana explains why the British so habitually insist
> on truncating-down the ever-glorious (and 100%-theoretical!) discipline of
> mathematics merely to "maths".

Is "math" any better?
The final S at least preserves the concept of multiple constituent disciplines.

> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> ===================
> * Consciousness on the part of the Almighty is an absolutely essential
> quality of anything (uh--better make that "anyOne") described by ANY believer
> as "G-d"; that is, if G-d indeed exists but somehow doesn't KNOW He or She or
> It is in fact G-d (as argued by those who assert that "nature is G-d"--thus
> that a tree or a boulder or even a solitary electron stands as an EMBODIMENT
> and not merely a manifestation of such a "god"), then the entire discussion
> descends into utter absurdity, a circumstance which logically-based types
> should never condone, even by merely conversationally engaging such untenable
> nonsense.

As a militant believer that one can not determine what consciousness
the IFC possesses,only that all existence is subordinated to and contingent
upon its existence,I reject this assertion as an attempt to treat disproof
of any special case as disproving the general theory.

> ** The clever one of those 3,000-odd proofs--and one of the more
> elegant--I've ever seen was the work of a young fellow who in time would be
> arguably the greatest mind ever to occupy the White House. I refer to James
> Garfield, a precocious polymath***

See,if math were not "maths",we could have only monomaths.

> who served as a Union commander during the Civil War and who would sometimes
> dazzle folks by writing sentences in Greek with his right hand while
> simultaneously inscribing Latin translations of same with his left!
> Future-POTUS Garfield's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem was based on
> trapezoids, and when I stumbled upon it--and then scrutinized every step of
> it, as it is hardly of Godelian or Wiles-ian complexity--in an advanced
> algebra textbook during my junior year of high school in 1971, I came away
> with even MORE respect for the rather-pointlessly****-assassinated President,
> a remarkable historical figure I'd been intrigued by ever since 4th Grade in
> 1964 when I first read his World Book Encyclopedia entry in its entirety.
> *** A noun which sure SOUNDS like a mathematical term, but in fact TAINT
> one; consult Merriam-Webster should you doubt.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Well, I'm certainly no authority on atheism, and in fact am NOT
>>one--although I wouldn't necessarily NEED be one to constitute "expert"
>>status on the question; all I would need would be a thorough familiarity
>>with the doctrine, its numerous variants (and their implications), which are
>>seriously disparate in nuance as to how one arrives at that intellectual
>>conclusion. That is, not that "G-d is dead", as Nietzsche is endlessly (but
>>somewhat erroneously) quoted. That is, not merely that G-d isn't now
>>existant, but indeed never was. (Nietzsche was arguing that the IDEA of G-d
>>is no more, not that The Almighty had some sort of supernaturally-fatal
>>coronary.)

>I note that you engage fairly consistently in the Orthodox-Jewish-American
>trope of substituting a hyphen for the "o" in "God".
>For me this is a matter of mistranslation...while Judaism has a doctrinal
>aversion toward outright pronunciation of one particularly holy one of
>its many names for God,the English "God" should be seen as a reference to
>the general idea and not a specific translation of that unspeakably holy
>particular name,and thus not to be seen as impious to render in full.

The Orthodox who write that way -- who have had far more religious
instruction than I -- are well aware of that. It's a convenient way for the
writer to indicate that he is thinking about the comandment and obeying.

If the only way to violate that commandment is to take the Lord's name in
vain even though the vowels if not the consenants (no one bought vowels
from Pat Sajak for Vanna White to turn when the Hebrew writing system was
first devised; vowels were an afterthought indicated with diacritic marks)
were lost to history (if the consenants are even from the right name),
one cannot intentionally violate this commandment.

>>. . .

>It is Mr. Debris,not I,who described felines as atheist...some would
>describe them as self-deifying.

A cat told you to say that.

>>. . .

I appreciate your analysis of my explication of the agnostic-vs.-atheist position, and particularly thank you for clarifying that the thus-even-cats-are-atheists point was advanced by Mr./Ms. Meteorite Debris, not yourself. (And your "monomaths" line is a funny line, for sure, Louis; I may even cite your clever joke myself sometime in the future while discussing these matters. (As you've surely surmised by this point, conversations in my world often swerve into this endlessly-argued realm. And I'M usually the swerver, not the swervee.)

Oh, and while reviewing my mini-essay after posting it, I spotted my typo--the famed Middle Ages theologian was of course St. Anselm, not "Alselm"; noticing that, I immediately thought, "Surely Epstein's gonna nail me on THAT one", inasmuch as you seem to know something about every saint since St. Paul. My Anselm faux pas was a minor, typo-based error for sure; but meanwhile, Louis, you much more significantly disappointed me (after invoking that so-called Infinite First Cause) by neglecting to then in turn address the inevitable question which always immediately arises. Namely, "Then by what sort of supernatural mechanism did this IFC originate?" And THAT constitutes a logical dead-end that for my money calls into question the IFC itself. Or as less sophisticated arguments often phrase it, "If G-d created everything, then how did that all-powerful being ever come to create itself? Or most simply, "Then where did G-d HIMSELF come from?"

Speaking of which, it's a simple answer as to why an agnostic nonbeliever like me makes it a point to always types "G-d". (Whenever citing the Almighty, that is; more generic sorts of gods like the Greek and Roman supernatural rosters not only don't get that hyphenated foreshortening treatment, but also don't even warrant from me a capital G.)

No, my insistence about employing that Orthodox Jewish practice of avoiding-inscription of the name of The Almighty by substitution of "G-d" is NOT reflective of any respect I harbor for the mostly-tautological ideas of Orthodox Judaism, much less the fabled Elders of Zion. Rather, I do so to succinctly--a mere two letters with a hyphen amid them!--memorialize one of the most important moments in my life.

I refer to that glorious afternoon in late 1999 when Rabbi Daniel Friedman informed me--after detailing at length my personal, decades-long fascination with American Jewish culture in general and my specific intellectual journey culminating in my settled agnosticism in particular--that I was ALREADY there. Yep, Friedman then and there declared to my everlasting joy that, "Well, then you're already in!"

Friedman was in those days the lead rabbi of the [north suburban] Chicago temple of The Society for Humanistic Judaism*, and thusly after many years of settling into agnosticism, I had finally formalized my standing on what I and Michael Kinsley agree is Most Important Question Anyone Can Pose, to wit, "Does G-d in fact exist?" (The long-ailing leading liberal light Kinsley--who remains still very much alive somewhere in Greater Seattle if no longer, alas, publishing his incisive and often brilliant prose covering everything and everyone from atheism to Zimmerman [and yeah, he's from whence I spell the above-cited Zanadu name for my condo]--both agree that is hands-down the most important philosophical question of ALL...and once I was officially converted (into the only religion whose rituals and--WAY more important--moral groundings ever struck me as even remotely sensible), I could finally face that homely fellow in the mirror and think with great satisfaction, "So glad you've finally ACTED on--rather than merely CONTEMPLATING it more or less constantly ever since adolescence--that Most Important Question!"

STYBLE/Florida
============* Most SHJ** folk are seriously (or just reluctantly, due to emotional pressure from their families) atheistic, but many, including myself, are instead seriously agnostic.
** And SHJ is no "fringe" movement a la Jews for Jesus, et al., not by a long shot! The last time I saw a specific tally, SHJ had spread to having more than 200 SHJ-established congregations worldwide, including two in Israel itself. That of course includes the movement's founding temple in suburban Detroit, dating to early November 1963 when the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine and about three dozen of his congregants deserted their temple in Birmingham and established the first SHJ outpost in nearby Farmington Hills, though Wine preserved the Birmingham name (and that's why the Birmingham Temple is in Farmington Hills, not Birmingham, Michigan). By the way, much later I publicly nominated Wine for a long-overdue Nobel Prize in Theology on "Radioactive Seattle with Bryan Styble" over the AM airwaves of KIRO 710 kHz commercial newstalk radio. (Yeah, I realize there's no Nobel Prize in Theology, but there sure SHOULD be one, along with a Nobel Prize in Music, too.) But quite by mere happenstance, I first learned about Wine and his breakaway congregation in April 1993, only my first month in Motown doing the "Open Lines for Open Minds" broadcast for WJR/Detroit at 760 kHz. After decades of dating Jewesses almost exclusively (yet always just pusillanimously dithering on their oft-expressed desire that I'd take the religious plunge), my theological bearing was thusly finally on its way toward settling on a specific direction. (Though again, it took another six years of hanging with the SHJ crowd before I managed to get that oh-so-satisfying imprimatur from Friedman in Chicago. No exaggeration: it felt just GREAT that I finally DID something formal [i.e., converting officially, if only via a nonbeliever rabbi] about that Most Important Question, rather than merely MUSING about it endlessly. As, not at all incidentally, ALL of us in this thread are doing right here ourselves. (Which is sure a lot more intellectually-stimulating than say, asking of your barkeep, "How 'bout them Cowboys this season?" or all the other such cerebrally-shallow questions most folks squander their leisure hours kicking around. (Though if one MUST kick around a topic, I suppose football is a more appropriate subject for that than most.)

On Tue, 16 May 2023 17:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Meteorite Debris
<peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:

>Important point on atheism. A-theism as in amoral. That is the definition. One does not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist but simply not to lack a belief in god(s). A believer that there are no god(s) would be an im-theist as in immoral.

"One who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being."

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme
intelligent Being."

"A person who believes that no deities exist (especially, one who has no
other religious belief).

You can argue as to whether or not you're an atheist according to that
definition, but telling people they're using a word wrong because you
choose to use it for yourself despite the fact that it doesn't describe
you is going a bit far. We have quite enough of that going on with other
words already.

David Carson

--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> ADDENDUM:
>
> Oh, and while [but NOT Wiles!]

But if no Loose-Wiles,then no Hydrox...

> we're on the endlessly-fascinating subject of G-d's possible existence,
> here's my first-verse-and-chorus rewrite of one-hit-wonder band The
> Rainmakers's quite witty tune, "Let My People Go-Go", which I enjoy
> performing* for pals:
>
>
> Well, Moses climbed up on Mt. Sinai
> (Had to get the lowdown from On High)
> He told The Almighty,
> "Lord, we ALL 'put the bomp'
> But, please, 'pray'-tell just WHY--I-I-I ?"
> "I didn't put you there to tremble!
> Nor I didn't place you down there to fret or whine;
> I put you on that planet to LOVE one another!
> Now run along, son...
> Still...HAVE A GOOD TIME !!!
>
> So LET MY PEOPLE GO-GO!
> You must let my people go!
> Just LET MY PEOPLE GO-GO !
> (And dance all night, to rock & roll)
> Amen!
>
>
>
> STYBLE/Florida
> =============
> * Self-contained as a mercifully-brief, single-verse song--and rendered from the low-rise, too-small-for-duets stage inside Stately Styble Manor** condo ZANADU***, a performance platform situated between the baby-grand piano and the keyboard stand.
> ** A too-obvious allusion to Bruce Wayne's TV manse above The Batcave.
> *** You can probably guess why I pointedly misspelled Citizen Kane's own Florida "Xanadu" with a Z.

If invoking the Wayne Manor resident's professional
acquaintances,you could hope for a Zatannadu?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> I appreciate your analysis of my explication of the agnostic-vs.-atheist position, and particularly thank you for clarifying that the thus-even-cats-are-atheists point was advanced by Mr./Ms. Meteorite Debris, not yourself. (And your "monomaths" line is a funny line, for sure, Louis; I may even cite your clever joke myself sometime in the future while discussing these matters. (As you've surely surmised by this point, conversations in my world often swerve into this endlessly-argued realm. And I'M usually the swerver, not the swervee.)
>
> Oh, and while reviewing my mini-essay after posting it, I spotted my
> typo--the famed Middle Ages theologian was of course St. Anselm, not
> "Alselm";

I did notice that,but omitted the correction in my
set of longer disputations.

> noticing that, I immediately thought, "Surely Epstein's gonna nail me on THAT
> one", inasmuch as you seem to know something about every saint since St.
> Paul.
> My Anselm faux pas was a minor, typo-based error for sure; but meanwhile,
> Louis, you much more significantly disappointed me (after invoking that
> so-called Infinite First Cause) by neglecting to then in turn address the
> inevitable question which always immediately arises. Namely, "Then by what
> sort of supernatural mechanism did this IFC originate?"

THAT sort of question betrays incomprehension of the word
"Infinitely" on the part of the person asking.

> And THAT constitutes a logical dead-end that for my money calls into
> question the IFC itself. Or as less sophisticated arguments often phrase it,
> "If G-d created everything, then how did that all-powerful being ever come to
> create itself? Or most simply, "Then where did G-d HIMSELF come from?"

The version I hear most is "Then who created God?" and as noted,
when you are speaking of the beginning of an infinite sequence
that by definition is unique in having nothing before it,is only
asked by someone who doesn't understand the concept.
It's like there being a point within a sphere that is further
from the surface than the center is...it's impossible.

> Speaking of which, it's a simple answer as to why an agnostic nonbeliever
> like me makes it a point to always types "G-d". (Whenever citing the
> Almighty, that is; more generic sorts of gods like the Greek and Roman
> supernatural rosters not only don't get that hyphenated foreshortening
> treatment, but also don't even warrant from me a capital G.)

(I have heard a rabbi make a point of pronouncing "G-d" to rhyme with
thud).

> No, my insistence about employing that Orthodox Jewish practice of
> avoiding-inscription of the name of The Almighty by substitution of "G-d" is
> NOT reflective of any respect I harbor for the mostly-tautological ideas of
> Orthodox Judaism, much less the fabled Elders of Zion. Rather, I do so to
> succinctly--a mere two letters with a hyphen amid them!--memorialize one of
> the most important moments in my life.
>
> I refer to that glorious afternoon in late 1999 when Rabbi Daniel Friedman
> informed me--after detailing at length my personal, decades-long fascination
> with American Jewish culture in general and my specific intellectual journey
> culminating in my settled agnosticism in particular--that I was ALREADY
> there. Yep, Friedman then and there declared to my everlasting joy that,
"> Well, then you're already in!"
>
> Friedman was in those days the lead rabbi of the [north suburban] Chicago
> temple of The Society for Humanistic Judaism*, and thusly after many years of
> settling into agnosticism, I had finally formalized my standing on what I and
> Michael Kinsley agree is Most Important Question Anyone Can Pose, to wit,
> "Does G-d in fact exist?"

While I have a certain sympathy with the response "God only knows!"
I think there is no logic in assuming that anything could possibly
exist unless an IFC existed.

> (The long-ailing leading liberal light
> Kinsley--who remains still very much alive somewhere in Greater Seattle if
> no longer, alas, publishing his incisive and often brilliant prose covering

I just looked up his age and was astonished to learn he's not even a complete
decade older than me,despite having first been editor of a national magazine
when I was in my teens.(He's also over a decade younger than any of the six
most senior leaders of the LDS Church).

> everything and everyone from atheism to Zimmerman [and yeah, he's from whence
> I spell the above-cited Zanadu name for my condo]--both agree that is
> hands-down the most important philosophical question of ALL...and once I was
> officially converted (into the only religion whose rituals and--WAY more
> important--moral groundings ever struck me as even remotely sensible), I
> could finally face that homely fellow in the mirror and think with great
> satisfaction, "So glad you've finally ACTED on--rather than merely
> CONTEMPLATING it more or less constantly ever since adolescence--that Most
> Important Question!"
>
> STYBLE/Florida
> =============
> * Most SHJ** folk are seriously (or just reluctantly, due to emotional
> pressure from their families) atheistic, but many, including myself, are
> instead seriously agnostic.

I have long been annoyed by the appropriation of the "Humanist" term by
atheists,since I think dedication to human reason must necessarily lead
one to the conclusion that there must necessarily be an IFC.
(Anselm fell off the wagon by making the ludicrous extension that the
IFC would therefore be as defined by his religion's allegedly sacred
texts).

I remember a radio broadcast in which the later-murdered atheist
leader Madalyn (Mays Roths) Murray O'Hair was recalling a past occasion
on which she had decried what she saw as euphemisms for atheism in
stating,"We are not secularists,rationalist,or humanists,we are
atheists!" (I may have her exact words a bit wrong)...while I AM
a secularist,a rationalist,and a humanist,but EMPHATICALLY NOT an atheist.

> ** And SHJ is no "fringe" movement a la Jews for Jesus, et al., not by a
> long shot! The last time I saw a specific tally, SHJ had spread to having
> more than 200 SHJ-established congregations worldwide, including two in
> Israel itself.

They are presumably less ritually oriented than Reconstructionist Jews,
who cherish custom while disregarding belief.

> That of course includes the movement's founding temple in
> suburban Detroit, dating to early November 1963 when the late Rabbi Sherwin
> Wine and about three dozen of his congregants deserted their temple in
> Birmingham and established the first SHJ outpost in nearby Farmington Hills,
> though Wine preserved the Birmingham name (and that's why the Birmingham
> Temple is in Farmington Hills, not Birmingham, Michigan). By the way, much
> later I publicly nominated Wine for a long-overdue Nobel Prize in Theology on
> "Radioactive Seattle with Bryan Styble" over the AM airwaves of KIRO 710 kHz
> commercial newstalk radio. (Yeah, I realize there's no Nobel Prize in
> Theology, but there sure SHOULD be one, along with a Nobel Prize in Music,

Shouldn't that be up to the Nobel foundation?

> too.) But quite by mere happenstance, I first learned about Wine and his
> breakaway congregation in April 1993, only my first month in Motown doing the
> "Open Lines for Open Minds" broadcast for WJR/Detroit at 760 kHz. After
> decades of dating Jewesses almost exclusively (yet always just
> pusillanimously dithering on their oft-expressed desire that I'd take the
> religious plunge), my theological bearing was thusly finally on its way
> toward settling on a specific direction. (Though again, it took another six
> years of hanging with the SHJ crowd before I managed to get that
> oh-so-satisfying imprimatur from Friedman in Chicago. No exaggeration: it
> felt just GREAT that I finally DID something formal [i.e., converting
> officially, if only via a nonbeliever rabbi] about that Most Important
> Question, rather than merely MUSING about it endlessly. As, not at all
> incidentally, ALL of us in this thread are doing right here ourselves.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hard to say whether this is more or less disturbing than our typical American mass-shooting-style massacres--certainly less bloodshed, one would imagine--although in pure body count, this taxi-driver-turned-televangelist is out-murdering our gunmen* by exponentially-wide margins.

Taxi driver, televangelist, whatever - he killed, and he killed plenty. I could
not access your link and am afraid to. I think my browser is behind the
times, like me. I click on links and get a security warning. I say 'ignore
it' and it asks for a password. It's not worth it. Besides, I enjoy imagining
just as much, if not more. I am assuming from your words that the duuuuude
used something other than a gun. Machete? Knife? poison? Bare hands?
Wow, that would be a first. It is time for a more creative approach to mass
killings. Beyond the gun. Take it to a higher level. Imagination. Creativity.
Not sheer numbers. Although admittedly the higher the numbers the more
attention received. I'll read about it later.

On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 13:41:45 UTC+9:30, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Meteorite Debris <peter.gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 03:38:36 UTC+9:30, Louis Epstein wrote:
> >> Meteorite Debris <peter.gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 06:09:14 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis, and especially on this one.
> >> >>
> >> >> He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e., "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.
> >> >>
> >> >> STYBLE/Florida
> >> >
> >> > Important point on atheism. A-theism as in amoral. That is the definition.
> >> > One does not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist but simply not
> >> > to lack a belief in god(s). A believer that there are no god(s) would be an
> >> > im-theist as in immoral.
> >> Generally speaking,atheism is considered to be the positive belief
> >> that there is no god,with simple lack of belief coming under agnosticism.
> > An atheist like myself would know better what an atheist is. The word starts
> > with an "A" is in "amoral, not "IM" as in immoral. The Greek prefix for "no"
> > or "lacking", so atheism means No belief is god(s). Every baby is born an
> > atheist and your cat is an atheist. An "imtheist" would better describe
> > someone who believes there is no god(s). Why would anyone need to hold such a
> > belief? There is no such thing as an "afairyest" who believes there are no
> > fairies. Fairies are simply not in anyone's thoughts because no one believes
> > there are fairies.
> I accept that you call yourself an atheist,but the term has been
> used for those who explicitly deny that there is a god for longer
> than any of us have been around,and appropriating it for (only)
> those who simply don't have an explicit belief when there are other
> words for that does not aid understanding.

I think atheists know better than others what a definition of atheism is. There is just no need to believe there is no god. After not believing in Yahweh one then has to form a belief that the thousands of gods do not exist. Just because Yahweh does not exist doesn't mean Zeus do not exist or Woden or Vishnu. Life is too short. Who would waste time on believing fairies do not exist? Every cat and every new born baby is an atheist. The word is a-theism as in a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral.

On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 17:26:22 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, I'm certainly no authority on atheism, and in fact am NOT one--although I wouldn't necessarily NEED be one to constitute "expert" status on the question; all I would need would be a thorough familiarity with the doctrine, its numerous variants (and their implications), which are seriously disparate in nuance as to how one arrives at that intellectual conclusion. That is, not that "G-d is dead", as Nietzsche is endlessly (but somewhat erroneously) quoted. That is, not merely that G-d isn't now existant, but indeed never was. (Nietzsche was arguing that the IDEA of G-d is no more, not that The Almighty had some sort of supernaturally-fatal coronary.)
>
> Though definitiely not an atheist, I AM most certainly an AGNOSTIC, and indeed a MILITANT one: that is, I resent it and vigorously object whenever someone mischaracterizes the agnostic position. Agnosticism is NOT an affirmation of the non-existence of any entity which might be arguably described as a god of any stripe. However, Sir Epstein, you're not far off the mark, when you describe a cat as being atheistic, merely because it--PRESUMABLY, as I can't read human OR feline minds--has no belief in a supernatural entity.

Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge of god(s), not a lack of belief in a god. You can be an agnostic theist, meaning you do not know there is a god but you believe in a god. You can be a gnostic theist meaning you have knowledge of god(s) and you believe in god(s). You can be an agnostic atheist (what most self proclaimed "agnostics" are) not knowing there is a god and not believing in any god(s). You can be a gnostic atheist knowing there is no god(s) and you lack belief.

The word is a-theism as in a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral. "A" as in the Greek prefix of lacking.

Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 13:41:45 UTC+9:30, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Meteorite Debris <peter.gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 03:38:36 UTC+9:30, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> >> Meteorite Debris <peter.gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 06:09:14 UTC+9:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> Hitchens was often a stickler on this nomenclature of various sorts, Louis, and especially on this one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He described himself generically as an "anti-theist", but would also shorten it to "a-theist", the hyphen inserted not just graphically but when he voiced it with an stress on the [long] A followed by a slight pause (i.e., "A-theist"), all emphatically expressed in his lovely Oxford accent, and thus semantically distinguishing his particular intellectual creed from that of other nonbelievers who arrived at the same conclusion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> STYBLE/Florida
>> >> >
>> >> > Important point on atheism. A-theism as in amoral. That is the definition.
>> >> > One does not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist but simply not
>> >> > to lack a belief in god(s). A believer that there are no god(s) would be an
>> >> > im-theist as in immoral.
>> >> Generally speaking,atheism is considered to be the positive belief
>> >> that there is no god,with simple lack of belief coming under agnosticism.
>> > An atheist like myself would know better what an atheist is. The word starts
>> > with an "A" is in "amoral, not "IM" as in immoral. The Greek prefix for "no"
>> > or "lacking", so atheism means No belief is god(s). Every baby is born an
>> > atheist and your cat is an atheist. An "imtheist" would better describe
>> > someone who believes there is no god(s). Why would anyone need to hold such a
>> > belief? There is no such thing as an "afairyest" who believes there are no
>> > fairies. Fairies are simply not in anyone's thoughts because no one believes
>> > there are fairies.
>> I accept that you call yourself an atheist,but the term has been
>> used for those who explicitly deny that there is a god for longer
>> than any of us have been around,and appropriating it for (only)
>> those who simply don't have an explicit belief when there are other
>> words for that does not aid understanding.
>
> I think atheists know better than others what a definition of atheism is.

I think it very clear that different people who call themselves
atheists have different definitions of what atheism is,just the
same as other people do.

Look at how the American Atheists belittled the breakaway
Freedom From Religion Foundation.

> There is just no need to believe there is no god. After not believing in
> Yahweh one then has to form a belief that the thousands of gods do not exist.
> Just because Yahweh does not exist doesn't mean Zeus do not exist or Woden or
> Vishnu. Life is too short. Who would waste time on believing fairies do not
> exist? Every cat and every new born baby is an atheist. The word is a-theism
> as in a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:39:41 -0700 (PDT), Meteorite Debris
<peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think atheists know better than others what a definition of atheism is.

You mean atheists like babies and cats?

>There is just no need to believe there is no god. After not believing in Yahweh one then has to form a belief that the thousands of gods do not exist. Just because Yahweh does not exist doesn't mean Zeus do not exist or Woden or Vishnu. Life is too short. Who would waste time on believing fairies do not exist? Every cat and every new born baby is an atheist. The word is a-theism as in a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral.

Babies are born a-everything, so I don't know what your point is.

Babies are born alingual, but their (our) brains are hardwired to convert
them to monolingual, bilingual, or polylingual at a young age, because a
thirst for language is innate in humans; an alingual human is not a fully
realized person. I think you see where this is going.

If a person remained alingual into adulthood, everyone else would call him
alingual regardless of whatever he thought about it. What he believed or
didn't believe, or what his opinion was about it, would be irrelevant to
everyone else.

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com