|
|
|
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:17:25 +0100,
group: uk.philosophy.atheism
back
'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
The title of a recent thread in the Facebook group 'Alabama Atheists and
Agnostics'...
I reckon they need to have this explained to them...
SF.
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:17:25 +0100
author: Skill Fragments Skill
|
Re: 'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
Skill Fragments wrote:
> The title of a recent thread in the Facebook group 'Alabama Atheists and
> Agnostics'...
>
> I reckon they need to have this explained to them...
The problem is that - in a very christian society like the US -
'atheist' has taken on a special meaning because its use has been
defined by christians. I saw one US dictionary that defined
'atheist' as 'anti-christ'.
Don't forget that G Bush Snr is on record as saying that "No, I
don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
Thus the 'agnostic' tag may be used to set people aside from the
concept of the evil atheist.
regards, Ian
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:10:10 +0100
author: Ian Smith
|
Re: 'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
Ian Smith wrote:
>
> The problem is that - in a very christian society like the US -
> 'atheist' has taken on a special meaning because its use has been
> defined by christians. I saw one US dictionary that defined
> 'atheist' as 'anti-christ'.
>
> Don't forget that G Bush Snr is on record as saying that "No, I
> don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
> should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
>
> Thus the 'agnostic' tag may be used to set people aside from the
> concept of the evil atheist.
>
Yes. Anyone feel like joining the group and explaining why it is that there
is no 'ideology' attached to atheism...? Some twit was bloviating about
it... and the other nitwits in the group were just standing there...
SF.
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:53:09 +0100
author: Skill Fragments Skill
|
Re: 'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
Skill Fragments wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that - in a very christian society like the US -
>> 'atheist' has taken on a special meaning because its use has been
>> defined by christians. I saw one US dictionary that defined
>> 'atheist' as 'anti-christ'.
>>
>> Don't forget that G Bush Snr is on record as saying that "No, I
>> don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
>> should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
>>
>> Thus the 'agnostic' tag may be used to set people aside from the
>> concept of the evil atheist.
>>
>
> Yes. Anyone feel like joining the group and explaining why it is that there
> is no 'ideology' attached to atheism...? Some twit was bloviating about
> it... and the other nitwits in the group were just standing there...
Anyone talking about an ideology being inherent in atheist is certainly
a bloviating twit and is generally not worth bothering with, nor the
nitwits who agree with him, so why should we explain anything?
--
L. Raymond
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0500
author: L. Raymond badaddress@....com
|
Re: 'An idiotic discourse on Facebook'
On Oct 19, 11:17 pm, "Skill Fragments" <Skill Fragme...@ech.co.uk>
wrote:
> The title of a recent thread in the Facebook group 'Alabama Atheists and
> Agnostics'...
>
> I reckon they need to have this explained to them...
That whole thread was pure drivel.
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
author: Davej
|
Re: 'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0500, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
wrote:
>Skill Fragments wrote:
>
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem is that - in a very christian society like the US -
>>> 'atheist' has taken on a special meaning because its use has been
>>> defined by christians. I saw one US dictionary that defined
>>> 'atheist' as 'anti-christ'.
>>>
>>> Don't forget that G Bush Snr is on record as saying that "No, I
>>> don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
>>> should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
>>>
>>> Thus the 'agnostic' tag may be used to set people aside from the
>>> concept of the evil atheist.
>>
>> Yes. Anyone feel like joining the group and explaining why it is that there
>> is no 'ideology' attached to atheism...? Some twit was bloviating about
>> it... and the other nitwits in the group were just standing there...
>
>Anyone talking about an ideology being inherent in atheist is certainly
>a bloviating twit and is generally not worth bothering with, nor the
>nitwits who agree with him, so why should we explain anything?
Because if we don't it perpetuates the bigoted falsehoods about us.
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:06:20 -0400
author: Christopher A. Lee
|
Re: 'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
On Oct 20, 8:10 am, Ian Smith
wrote:
> Skill Fragments wrote:
> > The title of a recent thread in the Facebook group 'Alabama Atheists and
> > Agnostics'...
>
> > I reckon they need to have this explained to them...
>
> The problem is that - in a very christian society like the US -
> 'atheist' has taken on a special meaning because its use has been
> defined by christians. I saw one US dictionary that defined
> 'atheist' as 'anti-christ'.
And don't forget that all during the Cold War, atheism equalled
communism. Never mind that any particular atheist might be the
world's most fervent capitalist: if s/he admitted to not believeing
in gawd, most 'Mericans considered her/him a communist.
I'm actually old enough to remember those times. Grim.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
author: SkyEyes
|
Re: 'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
news:ovurd5l32cump4hpbtfbbb1gr54np0pim3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0500, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
>>
>>Anyone talking about an ideology being inherent in atheist is certainly
>>a bloviating twit and is generally not worth bothering with, nor the
>>nitwits who agree with him, so why should we explain anything?
>
> Because if we don't it perpetuates the bigoted falsehoods about us.
Yes. And in fact, the contributors in question are all beginning to look
like mischievous theists pretending to be atheist and agnostic: all the 'I
only want to clarify things for people' and 'I just want people to be aware
of the issues' stuff gives them away... In reality, they just want to muddy
the water...
SF.
date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:36:25 +0100
author: Skill Fragments Skill
|
Re: 'A discourse on the degenerative drive of an athiestic view.'
On Oct 21, 9:36 am, "Skill Fragments" <Skill Fragme...@ech.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" wrote in messagenews:ovurd5l32cump4hpbtfbbb1gr54np0pim3@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0500, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
>
> >>Anyone talking about an ideology being inherent in atheist is certainly
> >>a bloviating twit and is generally not worth bothering with, nor the
> >>nitwits who agree with him, so why should we explain anything?
>
> > Because if we don't it perpetuates the bigoted falsehoods about us.
>
> Yes. And in fact, the contributors in question are all beginning to look
> like mischievous theists pretending to be atheist and agnostic: all the 'I
> only want to clarify things for people' and 'I just want people to be aware
> of the issues' stuff gives them away... In reality, they just want to muddy
> the water...
>
> SF.
But are the concerned?
date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
author: trog69
|
|
|
