I Thought I Saw An Atheist

great poem! Thanks for sharing

Nice poem.

I love poems that rhyme! Do some people actually think so horribly about atheists?

Some of us are smart, rational people, John. Even atheists can be raving maniacs.

At least atheists make logical raving maniacs.

Yep.

The "yep" was for Charles. Michael, not necessarily. People can be all logical about one thing and complete lunatics about another.

People can even be illogical about their atheism. I'll bet there are people who don't believe in god because the devil told them not to, for example. I'm logical. I don't do everything the devil tells me.

I know Aniko....you're right.

There could be such people, Charles. I wouldn't expect there to be too many....

You too Charles...right..although I fail to see how one can believe in the devil and not in god.

My point is that ALL believers lack logic.

Hmm...a couple of my friends went through K-12 Catholic school. Both of them got a lot of training in logic, especially the one who went to a Jesuit high school. Both of them grew up to be indifferent to religion but it could have gone either way.

marvelous - a hoot

Nippy, I went to Catholic school from kindergarten through sophomore year of college. (A few of those years with Jesuits.) In college I was required to take a Theology class. In that class they talked about the Thomistic proffs of the existence of god. (The need for a first cause uncaused, a prime mover unmoved, etc.) I thought about it for a day or so and decided it was ridiculous. There was no such necessity.

In one fell swoop I was free of religion. I am forever grateful to the rigors of a Catholic School education.

Thanks for the poem. I have come in contact with people who have wanted nothing to do with me after they found out I was an atheist. That is why I usually don't share my religious views unless specifically asked. Most atheists I know are willing to listen to other people's views. However, religion seems to give many people a superiority complex that closes them off to new ideas.

Holly, I suspect it's more that they find the idea of nonbelief scary--at least for those who are friendly to other religions but are completely freaked out by atheism, I can't think of another reason.

Charles, it's not just Catholic schools--the same combination of religious education in (Anglican) schools with high standards in other subject areas is often credited with making England one of the most secular countries in the world....

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

Comeon, give those other animals some credit. They're atheists, too.

Joseph Campbell believed that religion serves as an anchor or a stabilizer for those who must have a reason not to be afraid of the unknown. The "threat" an atheist poses to a "believer" is that of acting as a reminder of the believer's own doubts. If there is no god, the believer is left with no answers...no promise of eternity...no security.

Michael, that's what I figure too.

They are, Lyndon, but that doesn't exclude the other thing.

I was fascinated by creation myths and symbolic meaning in religion until I found myself in an environment where I realized that the majority of people, including educated people literally believed all those things, and they based all their reasoning about the world on them. I've lived in three very different countries on two continents (and have been to a few others), but that realization was the closest I ever came to that thing called "culture shock".

I think it goes deeper than fear of the unknown. It's almost like it's a genetic predisposition that some people have and some don't. I'm happy with chaos, or at least a lack of meaning or purpose in life. I don't know why. When I was a child I felt the same way.

I have no idea if there's a divine anything. I've never seen any evidence for it but I haven't looked very hard either. I just don't care. If Pascal's Wager is the right way to look at this question, I'm screwed.

Well, I'll remain agnostic about the validity of all those comments, but this is a great poem!

I saw an atheist in the mirror this morning.

Thanks for posting this poem. I enjoyed it. I'd join in the conversation but I have to go do something about dinner. I'll try to make it back here.

I love it.

You are right Lyndon... Campbell did believe the creation myths are integral to understanding the human condition. But the key word here is "myth"...."myth".

Lyndon...I can not make myself a believer. This (atheism) is not a voluntary position...one that I have chosen...it is what I believe, or do not accept as valid. Pascal's wager is an impossibility. It is not a reason to believe...even a piss poor one. If one announces that he/she is a believer..."just in case"...that person knows his wager is invalid because of the false sincereness of his pledge of that belief.

Your statement..." And the atheist uses the "great so what" as a security blanket as well. Their cosmic nothingness is no more enlightened, and no less silly than the cosmic "father."

Can you please describe to me how an atheist can use the "great so what" or a lack of belief that a god exists, as a security blanket?

I don't do everything the devil tells me.
charles hussein thiesen - gather's only god AND humble success-wisdom guru

But you have to admit he's a pretty cool party guest...

Lyndon...I do not agree with anything you have just written. Quoting you..."I prefer to not pretend I know one way or the other, because I don't know." Nobody is pretending here. I believe that the existence of a "great cosmic father" (good description) is highly unlikely. This point of view is not a religion...it is simply a point of view...my point of view and the point of view of many others.

Lyndon, calling something part of an unholy trinity, quoting Nietzsche, or saying yin-yang are not arguments unless they actually address the question that's supposed to be addressed.... Michael asked a simple one: How is the "cosmic nothingness" a security blanket. To help this along a little, I'll define "cosmic nothingness" (not a term I can relate to--there is obviously something rather than nothing) as the idea that it appears there is no cosmic intelligence that cares about us and looks out for us, i.e. that the universe seems to be indifferent to our existence. The question was, how is this a security blanket in the same way as the idea that someone is looking out for us is? What does it protect against?

There is also the problem that you seem to use a very different definition of atheism than Michael (or myself). Your definition, from what can be gathered from your comments, is that atheists are those who are extreme and arrogant in their opposition to religion. Michael's definition (as it's apparent from his argument) is that he doesn't believe in the CFF (to use your term), and therefore, he's an atheist ("not a theist"). This happens to be the definition most atheists agree with--the mere lack of belief in God, nothing else.

The definition you use (I could say have bought into) was popularized by Christians and is mostly an American one. People in Europe use the word "atheist" much more freely and without the baggage it carries in the US.

Lyndon, I'm certainly not confusing the two. Atheism is the absence of theism, i.e. the absence of a belief in a god. It has been used like that historically (in some cases, for as little as having serious doubts about the existence of god or gods, or just acting as if they didn't exist). Agnosticism, a much younger word invented in the 19th century by Thomas Huxley (and one much less used outside the English-speaking world, except by philosophers), in its original form means the rejection of spiritual/mystical knowledge, "gnosis", or in its extended, common form, the position that the truth value of propositions about spiritual matters is unknown and perhaps inherently unknowable. These are two different ideas, and one can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time (not believe in god and maintain that the existence of god is unknowable), or one can be a theist and an agnostic, holding the position that the existence of god is unknowable but believing he does exist.

Now there's a common use of "agnostic" in the US and Britain as the choice of word for those who don't believe but who don't care much about the whole thing/don't want to upset anyone/think that atheists are mean, arrogant, foreign, or communists. As I said, the word is much less common in other languages in this colloquial use. "Atheism" carries fewer negative connotations in most continental European countries, and people who do shy away from it will say something like "not religious".

You can of course argue that the distinction you're trying to make is based on current common use in American English. That is certainly true, but the trouble with defining agnosticism as lack of belief and atheism as positive non-belief ("I am certain that no God exists") is that you would practically define it out of existence: very few, if any, atheists say that. (Cf that with "I know/I am certain God exists", which is, on the other hand, quite common.) The other problem is that most people who call themselves atheists disagree, and there is some argument to be made for letting the people who use a label for themselves play a major part in defining it.

Now the "believing" concept: ultimately, of course, everything is "belief"--we have no absolute certainty of anything, and some basic unprovable assumptions have to be made before we can even argue about anything. There are, however, widely varying degrees of probability to propositions--it could be, for example, that a giant lizard in the sky controls gravity, and that he could just turn it off tomorrow and we'll all fly off the surface of the planet, but we're reasonably certain that's not the case and that gravity will still be there tomorrow--one proposition is just immensely less likely to be true than the other. There is also burden of proof, and what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something: there could be a small teapot* in orbit around the sun, and if there were one, we wouldn't be able to detect it, but without evidence of any kind we have no reason to believe it's there. We're all essentially a-teapotists, not believing the teapot exists, while we're also agnostic about the teapot's existence: we acknowledge that it's unknowable.

*Bertrand Russell's example

Lyndon, You have determined that I am absolutely certain that there is no god...but my statement was very clear..."I believe that the existence of a "great cosmic father" (good description) is highly unlikely."

Quoting you..."The only difference between believers and non-believers is that one depends on the other for its pile of dirt to plant their silly-ass flag."

So where do you stand Lyndon? Do you stand as an "I don't knower"? Are you standing on a third pile of dirt waiting to plant YOUR little silly-ass flag as YOU attempt to have the last word? Have YOU turned red arguing about this?

You are an able advocate for your Religion of Uncertainty ("the only rational and independent "belief" is uncertainty") You are the same...you are doing the same thing as I am doing or Aniko is doing or the preacher in church is doing...we are defining our beliefs or stating our opinions, in this case, about the likeliness of a gcf. The preacher is certain there is a god, I am fairly certain that there is not and you are uncertain AND you are faulting the preacher and me for having drawn conclusions one way or the other, for the existence...or lack of existence... of god.

Each of us..the preacher, Aniko, me and you have our own convictions...but have you become the "know-it-all"? How can we each state our minds unless we think we "know" what we are saying is true? Re-read Aniko's "burden of proof/orbiting teapot" illustration.

You have chosen to accept uncertainty as your religion and I share your argument for uncertainty, but I cannot find fault with any of us who wish to ponder the matter further. Pondering leads to discussions and discussions lead to opinions being exchanged...ideas are shared. Not all of us do so with "unbelievable delusion and hypocrisy, the nasty little minds of the so-called in-the-know."

Lyndon, I'm not jazzed up, really (wish I were--maybe I'd have some blood pressure then to start the day on). I do have to rush off for a crazy day though, so I'll try to get back to you later.

Aniko is doing an admirable job here, so I won't butt in too much.

"Both believers and non-believers Believe. With no evidence."
Lyndon, what do non-believers "believe" with no evidence? I seems that, as Aniko said, you're incorrect on your terminology.

An atheist is a person who doesn't hold a belief in a god or gods. They lack belief. They're a(not) theists(people who believe in a god). I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't have knowledge that there is no god, but I live my life on the assumption that there isn't one. How did I reach this assumption? By lack of evidence. It doesn't take faith to no believe in something.

Belief isn't subject to the will. You either believe something (that is, you accept that something to be true) or you don't; you can't just start believing in something. If I told you, "There's an invisible gremlin in my basement," would you believe me? Do you believe that there's an invisible gremlin, and/or that there's one in my basement? If you're a sane, skeptical person you'd probably start off with a default 'No' position. Given enough proof or reason to believe in such a claim, you could believe (you're not closed off to the possibility). Does it take "faith" to say "No, I doubt there's an invisible gremlin in your basement."?

Atheists aren't saying "I believe there is no god", they're saying "I don't believe in any gods". And, by the way Lyndon, you're right about the burden of proof being tossed from one side to another. Someone who makes a claim (such as "There's an invisible gremlin in my basement") is automatically obligated to meet the burden of proof -- they're the one's making the claim. Too often, it is the believers who try to push their burden off on our non-believing shoulders.

I think Tristan and Michael addressed it very clearly. I was trying to point out that most people who call themselves "atheists" are not *certain* about the non-existence of a god, but consider it unlikely, and believe that the default "no" position is as reasonable in this case as it is with every other unproven claim, whether gremlins or celestial teapots or WMD's in distant countries. From what it seems, all three of us arguing with you here hold this position and consider ourselves atheists (I'll use the other a-word too, but I mean the same thing by it--agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism.) No atheist who's convinced God does not exist in the same way as believers are convinced that he does turned up here, and honestly, I don't expect any to do so.

I find it curious that you continue to define atheists as annoying twits who think they are smarter than everyone and "badger" people and "react to believers". Are there atheists like that? Of course. Are there atheists who keep quiet about their thoughts on religious matters and don't ever bring this topic up, especially with Christian friends? You bet. Are there stupid atheists? Evil ones? Friendly ones? Conservative ones? Liberal ones? Yep. I suppose there are even reactionary ones (fascists are probably easier to find). The point is there are all kinds, because the only necessary condition is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Er--Lyndon? Aren't you confusing nihilism with atheism then? Atheism doesn't say anything about "nothing", "no hope", "no reason" or "no sense in organizing"?

Atheism says nothing about how we should relate to the universe. There's no "should" in it at all--all the word does is describe a state of non-belief in the theistic proposition, which is a matter of fact, not of choice, and does not respond to "shoulds" or commands. You may choose the word you use to describe what you believe, but not what you believe. You can't make yourself believe or disbelieve stuff. It's also not a "conclusion" any more than any position we take is (they're all subject to change) and has absolutely nothing to do with consumerism or "out of my hands" apathy. You seem to be projecting an awful lot of stuff into it. And who said it doesn't matter that our loved ones die?

yeesh!


Why do people argue this stuff?

We are ALL "I don't knowers". None of us really knows a damn thing for certain.. except that we sleep, want sex, get hungry, and have to use the bathroom a lot.

Lyndon,

Please stop berating others with your nonsense or I'll be forced to kick you from this post.

Read Aniko's comments carefully. Atheists can only be grouped together under ONE thing: "those who hold no believes in any god or gods". That's it! There's NO dogma, tenets, creeds, or doctrines. It's not a position that promotes "nothingness" or disbelief in all things, and it's not a religion nor a religious position! But that doesn't mean that all atheists believe equally. It's like qualifying for the label "teenager"; only those within a certain age apply. But not all teenagers are the same! So goes for atheists. The main thing they have in common is that they all don't believe in god. After that, anything goes. Some accept evolution, some don't. As Aniko said, there are stupid ones, evil ones, liberal ones, etc.

What you seem to be confusing it with is nihilism, a doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake, a complete denial of all established authority and institutions, and a delusion that everything, including the self, don't exist. I'm not here to argue about nihilism, only to the extent that it IS IN NO WAY "atheism". All atheism is is a single answer to a single question.

That's it!

OK. I'm going to define my own term. I think it's safer. I like "heathen." I know it has an imprecise history but I like the sound of it anyway.

I'm pretty sure that there's no god. I can conceive of situations that would make me change my mind. I'm very sure that organized religion is mostly harmful. In spite of that I think people who want to practice a religion ought to be able to do it as long as they do it in private and exert no control over me or society at large.

Acutal photo of an atheist having lunch.


Be afriad. Be very afriad.

If an atheist doesn't believe in God and there is a God, it does not change God's existence no more than the theists believing in a God and there isn't one.

If a blind person can't see a ghost but a sighted person can, does it mean the ghost does not exist? It doesn't exist for the blind person. Why would the sighted person have to prove what he "sees" to one who doesn't ?

Why does it matter what the definition of atheist means to one or the other? An atheist believes he does not believe. When left to his own devices alone and destitute, he calls out to no one (supposedly). A believer in "God" believes in a power transcending self, when left alone and destitute, calls out to the "unknown" for help in time of need. One feels alone. The other does not.

Lyndon, why are you complaining about "open season on believers" when you came to this article and started attacking atheists? You accuse atheists of being too arrogant, of presuming to know too much, of being too hostile and attacking believers. But you are the one doing all the presuming, stereotyping and attacking here.

(I've refrained from saying this up to this point, but I find it especially ironic that we've been on threads together discussing or arguing with fundamentalist believers, and you were the one who addressed them in a hostile and often insulting way, just like you address atheists here, not me. I don't attack people; I just state what I believe. That's what I did on this article too.)

Debra, the other feels alone too if after calling out and calling out her child still dies of cancer, and on top of it she gets to wonder what she's being punished for.

I know and understand that.. very well. To give you an example.. My Aunt suffered the death of her child. She wanted desperately for the child to live but she died instead. For many years she was angry with God.. but it didn't stop her from believing in God. So, in a sense, she still didn't feel alone.. just let down.

Lyndon, are you angry?

I totally understand what you're saying here.. but I'm also listening to the others, who are making some valid points on atheism.

Aniko, are you an atheist?

I don't know what I am in this attempt to label a belief system. I don't know if there is a physical "God". I do believe, however, that we possess and are surrounded by powers we do not understand, can grasp, or see, and yet are able to tap into them.

My Father held an atheist in his loving arms,
and told that little atheist that he would guard him from all harms.

My Father held me that day the day that I was born,
and knew within his heart of hearts his newest
Little Atheist was his, and safe and warm.

Let's get serious here. God, if he exists needs no aid or comfort from mortal man. Without god though man is in dire need. As Necessity is the Mother of Invention, Invention is the Father of God.

Just checking, Lyndon. I wasn't sure how to interpret you, so thought I'd ask. I also have a great respect for Aniko.

Karl, that was PERFECT. Just before you posted your little poem, I was thinking how we as humans complicate everything by attempting to define it, take it apart and examine it. Is it a blessing or a curse? All others just accept what IS as far as the existence of being.

Why don't the lot of you create your own new religion, Meism?

Actually, that would come under the heading of memes. :-)

belief systems (whether you believe or reject "God") IS self centered, Lyndon. Not in such a negative way, but it is centered within SELF.. so for all of us, even you, it's difficult to remove self from the equation. With out the self, there is no belief or non belief. Things simply are, and we don't acknowledge we are a part of it all.

I'm glad Aniko was here before me because she did a much better job of stating what I would have wanted to say and, selfishly, I'm more than happy to let someone else step in front of the anger this time. The only I can think of to add to her contributions is this:

To, I was fascinated by creation myths and symbolic meaning in religion until I found myself in an environment where I realized that the majority of people, including educated people literally believed all those things, and they based all their reasoning about the world on them. I would add that I got annoyed when I realized that those educated people who literally believe all those things got angry and condescending when I refused to believe them too.

You're losing me on a few comments here, because I simply don't understand what you're trying to convey, Lyndon.

Could you clarify what this means? "What, Me? Now you're talkin'" crowd.

I'm not really sure how the whole topic of God is flushed down the toilet by the self. SELF created God ( and none of us really knows if God created SELF ) Self is the center of all God belief.

Jackie on fire is a tangible reality. I like exploring other realities as well.

Sandy, please check your Private messages in a minute. I have a question for you.

IMO, articles and stories are wonderful ways of getting to know one another. When it comes to the eternal mysteries, it's probably a good idea to eject the "self" from the equation. This doesn't sit too well with the self-centered set.

Lyndon, what doesn't "sit" well with me is that you enter conversations where other are discussing personal beliefs and insult them/us for expressing experiences or reasons for our beliefs. We can all read, and quote what we read. In a discussion, I think it is important to interpret what we've read and share something of myself. I think that is what others are doing here.

Oh, I reloaded the page and I can see there are plenty on new comments, but I'll post this one anyway:

Lyndon, for crying out loud, you brought up personal loss first, way up in the thread, and I asked you what it had to do with anything. You didn't answer that or any of the other questions. Also, I'm not sure what ship was jumped, or in what way we tried to redefine atheist. Any dictionary will give you the definition we quote: one who has no belief in a deity.

Debra, Lyndon gets like that sometimes. Perhaps he's had previous discussions with Tristan and he's reacting to those too. In any case, he seems to be reacting to some atheists who pissed him off, and he's projecting that to every atheist. (Let me point out that I do know the type he's talking about, but it's not a common type.) The stereotyping is disappointing, to be quite honest, from a progressive like him. It's the same thing that fuels sexism and racism--that man treated me badly, so all men are evil; that black guy robbed me so all black people are criminals.


Aniko, are you an atheist?

Me? I'm a Charlesian, of course. :-)

(I say it about mid-thread. I use various terms, and as a European, I tend toward non-religious. But the dictionary definition applies. It applies to you as well, but you don't have to take it if you don't want it. It's also true that the word is rarely used if someone believes in the supernatural, even if they believe in no deities as such.)

my willingness to believe in spooks and whatnot already colored my snot?

hahahahahah!!!

Was that a direct hit, Lyndon? Do you think I believe in "spooks" or whatnot?


Soooo, THATS how snot gets it's color! Good to know.

Lyndon, after talking with Aniko, I've decided to allow you to continue to discuss here with us, but please try to be a bit less aggressive, will you? I want to give everyone a fair voice, but if you're going to use it to belittle others and misconstrue words, you'll need to find another venue.

Lyndon says: Talking about "me" or "you" is fine and fun. When we drag in an abstraction as an extension of "me" or "you", the topic is already limited.

At the risk of offending you again by asking questions, I am going to ask because I think it is fair to question things that make no sense to me instead of assuming what I want about the person who made the statement. When I (I am using myself , even though I have seen you do the same to others, because I don't want to drag anyone else into my question or thoughts here), relate a personal experience or thought as an example or explanation, you tell me I am self-centered - or some other words equally insulting. Which way do you prefer we speak in your presence?

It's easy to climb aboard belif systems which support our own nonsense. So, our beliefs are nonsense and yours are --- what? And why is it different?

It's also easy to lend our opinions the weight or weightlessness of ideas we've already circumscribed. Get over it. Your belifs are your walking cane. Walk! Just don't drag your luggage into an honest debate. Your willingness to belive in spooks and whatnot already colored your snot.

What "spooks" are you talking about? Gods who threaten hell and damnation? Angels? Holy Spirits?

I am only fascinated with "spooks" and people's stories and folklore. I've never seen one, so I can't say with all certainty they actually exist. If I did see one.. I'd wonder what trick of nature caused it.

Could you make a list of indefensible horse crap for us. Please.

What I am surprised about is how hard it is for people to allow Lyndon's point about beliefs being bigger than any one belief.

Not sure what that means, Rubicon. What's "beliefs" and what's "any one belief", and what does "bigger than" mean in that inequality?

I think he is arguing that the atheist has a belief structure. Something that they can state affirmatively: "I believe there is no god." I disagree with Aniko that atheists "do not believe there is a god". That is the nihilist approach, I think.

(You probably mean agnosticism--nihilism is quite different.)

I tried to explain above what the problem is with that definition--it practically defines atheism out of existence, and it's contrary to what most people who self-identify as atheists say. It's hard to think of Richard Dawkins as anything less than an atheist, for example, but he clearly says he does not state there is no God, only that there is not good reason to believe there is one, and that he sees the probability of a [personal] god highly unlikely. That's a "belief structure" too, of course.

(But that's not what Lyndon argued at all. He argued that it's just as stupid as unreasonable to not believe as it is to believe--I'm trying to understand that somehow, though by my logic belief and non-belief sort of map like A and non-A, that is, the entire set of possibilities. He also argues that atheists are uppity, arrogant, hostile, etc.)

Beyond that, I have no position on any of the other heated remarks. Most of them seem to be advocating a belief. Otherwise why argue?

I don't know--why argue about anything? Politics, culture, all the rest? Everyone's just advocating beliefs. But here's what I saw happen here: this particular article by Tristan addressed the fact that many people view atheists as some kind of monsters, mostly because they don't know that many of the normal decent-looking people around them happen to be atheists. Lyndon came and said that atheists were in fact monsters--the arrogant, smarter-than-thou, hostile kind of monster. He completely rejected any appeals to consider atheists as different individuals, some of whom might be like that, while others are not. That's what I saw on this thread, and that's why I'm still here arguing.

You haven't been to a classroom for some time, I think. "I don't know" [shoulder shrug] is a much more common answer.

What's the shuffle? Please tell me. Don't tell me I'm putting myself in the center of things. We're both here, we're both talking, it's our brains that are coming up with these thoughts and arguments. It's just as true for you as it is for me. "I don't think I should take a position" has an "I" in it as well. There's no other way.

Lyndon, in case you haven't noticed, you've just posted 8 comments in a row (most directed at Sandy) in the space of 22 minutes and no one has commented BACK.

Exactly who are you arguing with?

And what the hell's up with your suddent fixation on Sandy? You're looking like a bit of a spaz.

Lyndon, seriously, is there some medication you forgot to take?

Uh...I'm hopelessly befuddled by the conversation Lyndon seems to be having with an imaginary Sandy. I blame Hawthorne.

Rubicon, you're perfectly right that "I believe there is no God" is the polar opposite of "I believe there is a God". But that's my exact point--that those of us who "don't believe there is a God" are not exactly operating in the same manner as the believers (which is what Lyndon is arguing we're doing).

You seem to be saying that because a logical polar opposite exists, and the word atheism exists, they must be matched to each other. But the question is what people actually believe, not what it is theoretically possible to believe. There are probably people who identify with "I believe there is no God", or who even say "I know there is no God" the way many believers say "I know there is a God." I don't know any such person, but given the diversity of ideas that human beings have, they are likely to exist. I am very sure that such people are a small minority. A much larger number of people who call themselves atheists identify with "I don't believe there is a God"-as I described it. An even larger number of people identify with the same statement, but prefer not to call it atheism, but agnosticism, irreligion, heathen-ness, whatever. All of that is fine. What bugs me is talking about atheists as fanatical, unreasonable, arrogant know-it-alls. There are of course some atheists like that--but we said that on this thread before Lyndon even turned up.

Lyndon: My only suggestion is that the discussion of ideas not floating around your own fantasies is already not a discussion about the unlimited discussions about the eternal mysteries. It' already a discussion about me and my shadow.

Cool. But then nothing is: it is completely impossible for us--for any of us, I suppose--or is it only me?-- to say anything about the eternal mysteries. Including this sentence, of course.

The trouble with postmodernist "everything is subjective and we don't really know anything at all" statements is that they invalidate themselves. They're perfect paradoxes: if they're true, then they are not true.

(Epistemologically speaking, they are true in a very basic and minimal way, but they're completely unhelpful. We cannot be absolutely certain about anything, but we can assign probabilities: it's much more certain that there are insects living on the plants in front of my window than that there are invisible pixies.)

Okay, sorry, I didn't see what this conversation has deteriorated into.

Lyndon, whatever you're smoking, throw it away. It's not good.

here's the bottom line:
what business is it of yours.

Lyndon, I will try another time to explain our position, though, since it has been clearly explained and you have attacked these patient explainers personally, I won't expect you to respond rationally.

I don't give a tinker's damn what anyone believes. If someone wants to believe in Hecate, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha, or Osiris - or no one at all - that's A-OK with me. The only issue I have is when a believer of anything (including those occasional militant athiests) wants to force their beliefs on me. At that time, I become perturbed because I already know what I believe and don't need anyone telling me. However, since my belief is not a popularity contest, I'm perfectly happy if I'm the only one on the face of the earth that believes as I do.

I don't have the urge to make everyone believe as I do. I just want to define my own beliefs myself and practice them in peace. Nor do I like policies that try to forcefeed beliefs on others.

You have come on to this thread and tried to define what others believed - then told those who held those beliefs they were full of crap when they said differently.

You are entitled to hold whatever beliefs you want for yourself. You are not entitled to define our beliefs - which are as diverse as we are. Not that you noticed.

And, by the way, that sense of wonder you praised when you were still lucid up there - why shouldn't it also apply to the supernatural? It takes an arrogant asshole to think he or she knows it ALL. Since I'm not omniscient, I refuse to be close-minded on the extents of what does and doesn't exist.

Love the poem!

You talkin' to me? That's Stephanie up there. What is it you were joking about?

Yes, Lyndon, if you care to attack blindly, don't pick on Aniko. Feel free to turn your guns on me.

I'm not afraid of you.

I am, however, going to bed for a few hours until my daughter wakes up and wants to be fed.

That is, if Lyndon doesn't pick her up first (since he's the better parent :)

Go get some sleep, Lyndon.

Lyndon, what the fuck are you talking about? Your deterioration here is reaching clinical proportions. This sentence (chosen from NUMEROUS possibilities) for example:

I also believe that shit heels who claim to have killed by sheer hatred are chunks of shit.

Dude, that makes NO SENSE! And all that ranting about my wife? My wife's not even on this thread. Do you even know who my wife is? Are you trying to say that Sandy is my wife? Who are you talking to and what the hell are trying to say?

WHAT THE FUCK?

Lyndon, get some sleep, dude.

I have no problem being a bitch, or, apparently, worse. But you, bud, are losing it.

Lyndon, you don't know anything about me.

Right now, I certainly don't know you. I wonder if you do.

Lyndon, it's obvious to those with brains that you are not making even the slightest sense.

I'm not sure what prompted this stream of incoherent venom but I hope you feel better in the morning.

WTF happened here?

Lyndon, you seem somewhat obsessed with me. Or, are you using 'wife' in some sort of metaphorical sense? Either way, here are many of them times that you referred to AntiChrist's wife (i.e. ME) and I would like to respond to some of them.

Is your wife already diminished?
I'm short, but I would not consider myseld diminished.

I hate to bum you out, Anti-? but your wife already defined your substance.

BTW, I got your wife's permission, so, no worry.
Ah, no you did not.

Subject to your wife's approval.

I see you, and I think your wife should practrice constrarint.
What the hell are you talking about?

Is that OK, wifey?
You're not okay

If you had been paying attention to anything besides your own fantasies of Big Bad, and your wife's approval, you would have noticed to what I was referring.

I see you and I see your wife.
Well, that is pretty creepy.

Again, wow.

I believe in miracles and rainbows.

God damn! WTF happened last night? I log on and see the most comments I've ever had on an article! Turns out they are mostly incoherent attacks from Lyndon.

I'll apologize to everyone who reads these comments, and more-so to anyone this asshat has personally offended or attacked. I was afraid this would happen...

On the other hand, I sorta like having an article with a shitload of comments (even if they are drug-induced, vociferous anal spewage). So, for those involved, feel free to ignore this thread. Let Lyndon babble inarticulately until he tires himself out. I won't remove him, but I don't want all of you to waste your time trying to engage him. Just read the main article at the top and leave a RELATED comment if you wish.

For now, Lyndon doesn't exist on this thread.

I hope you don't feel like I hijacked, Tristan.

I have never understood why anyone should have to defend their own beliefs (if they're not hurting anyone or forcing it on anyone), including an absence of belief. The notion that absence of belief=absence of morals is as demonstrably ludicrous as belief=morals, but it certainly does not mean belief=no morals.

Tristan:

I enjoyed it. Not so much the comment thread that I read, though.

There are people who call themselves atheists and believe they KNOW there is no God.
There are people who call themselves atheists and believe they THINK there is no God.
There are people who call themselves Agnostics who believe we can never KNOW either way.
There are people who call themselves Christians who believe they KNOW there is a God.
There are people who call themselves Christians who believe they Think there is a God.

The one thing in common is that they're all people.

I've seen some atheists with better ethics and values than Christians and the other way around. I'm reminded of some great people . . . like Mother Theresa and Mahatma Gandhi . . . who worked with people not of the same religion. Allow belief . . . allow dissent . . . it's actions, not words that matter while we're here on Earth. It's how we treat one another (Lyndon) . . . and it's respecting the beliefs of others. I'm Muslim, Buddhist and Christian and firmly believe different religions are different paths on the one true road. I follow the Tao, studied Chinese language and Philosophy under a Princeton Professor who was a Buddhist, World religions from a Catholic Nun and have read (and studied) the Bible (cover to cover 7 times), Koran, Tao te Ching, Confucious, Bagavad Gita . . . and many others. There ARE universal themes.

This was a good poem about people that many people don't understand. I think that there are those who think they are so correct in their thinking that they are not able to consider another point of view.

Thanks for the poem, Tristan.

He moved on to other threads, Tristan. I don't think he'll be back. Sorry about the mess.

Doyle, the details of the Mother Teresa story look a bit different from the packaged myth we've been sold.

There are people who call themselves atheists and believe they KNOW there is no God . . .

And then there are those of us who don't call ourselves anything, because we don't want to be stuck in a box, but are automatically labeled atheists by Christians because we don't buy into what they believe.

There are people who call themselves Christians and believe they KNOW there is a God...

Either statement is ridiculous. No one KNOWS for sure. It's should be about reason and rational thinking. The problem I have with many of these comments is that they lack healthy thinking.

I, for one, don't care for labels. I know what works for me. Only those who have a "formal" belief systems seem interested in labeling me. I am not and most of my friends don't care what I believe, just who I am.