Thrown out of an FBO...

Jose wrote:
"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

Snarf.

To snarf means to take, (usually surrepticiously) an item (usually a
small one). I've just snarfed this into my quotes file. (How) would
you like to be credited when I use it?

The quote did not originate from me. I don't recall where I first saw it -
a net search may locate the originator.

Statement X: "A person making the statement Y, "All religions are
invalid," makes the person a member of a religion R."

What does "valid" and "invalid" mean in this context? A religion can be
valid and false, for some reasonable definitions of "valid".

Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:21:38 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jose wrote:
"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

Snarf.

To snarf means to take, (usually surrepticiously) an item (usually a
small one). I've just snarfed this into my quotes file. (How) would
you like to be credited when I use it?

The quote did not originate from me. I don't recall where I first saw it -
a net search may locate the originator.

Statement X: "A person making the statement Y, "All religions are
invalid," makes the person a member of a religion R."

What does "valid" and "invalid" mean in this context? A religion can be
valid and false, for some reasonable definitions of "valid".

Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

If cognative dissonance invalidated a religion, we could all stop
right there.

Don

Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

Then...

(1) The person is now in a religion R whose only precept, Y, is true,
making the religion R valid.

.... the definition of religion implied above is extremely weak. To wit:
"A religion is a set of true statements" is a poor definition of
religion. I suppose that's your point (and I agree with it). However,
R being invalid does not prevent R from being a religion, any more than
X being invalid does.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Logajan wrote:

Judah wrote:

Dylan Smith wrote in
:


Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's
an ...absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you
know.

It's possible. But not likely. Atheism is not absence of religion.


"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp
collecting.


Matt

"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."


Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp collecting.

Is it possible to not have a hobby? (can you say "chartered accountant"?)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."



Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp
collecting.


Is it possible to not have a hobby? (can you say "chartered accountant"?)

Yes, but the analogy was weak to begin with. Having a hobby isn't like
having beliefs. I don't think it is possible to have no beliefs and
more than it is possible to "stop thinking." It is just a question of
which system of beliefs you choose.

To me the analogy is more akin to a computer CPU. As long as it has
power, it is processing. The process my be excuting NOP instructions,
but the point is that the CPU is ALWAYS executing as long as it has
power. I believe the same is true of the human brain. It is always
processing and always believing in something. So, I reject the idea
that it is possible to either believe in nothing or have no beliefs at all.


Matt

Atheism is not absence of religion. It's a
dogmatic belief that there is no God.

The word is actually used both ways. This tends to confuse things,
since people respond to the words they hear, not to the ideas that were
not successfully expressed. When I need to be precise, I use the
following three words thus:

Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered up in
the religions I know of, exist.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
up in the religions I know of, exist.

OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

They're both athiesm. The first is the type of athiest I was when I saw
religion as mostly harmless stupidity.

I don't see it that way any more, so now I'm an active athiest. I no longer
refuse to talk about religion when it is brought up. I state my athiesm and
my reasons.

mike


"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
up in the religions I know of, exist.

OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 05:29:28 -0500, mike regish wrote:
I don't see it that way any more, so now I'm an active athiest. I no
longer refuse to talk about religion when it is brought up. I state my
athiesm and my reasons.

I'm a live and let live type of person for the most part -- as long as
someone doesn't try to force their lifestyle choices / beliefs upon me...
Otherwise, oh well, gators gotta eat too, ya' know... evil-grin

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/gators-gotta-eat-too

If someone wants to **** sheep while wearing rubber boots and a raincoat
and singing "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head", I don't care as long as
they do it in private... I don't mind them being a pervert, just keep it
private where it belongs and don't try to pretend that it is a normal
lifestyle choice... If they bring it out in public where my family might
have to see it ... well ... that means that I will have to get involved...
I seriously suspect that neither of us would really like for it to
escalate to that point...