no…I can’t…fish in a barrel…
Yes, my discharge papers are in a lock box downtown. I don’t go there very often but when I do I will scan in my certificate of honorable discharge from the navy.
It has amazed me how one person, working from nothing, can make accusations that actually dupe other people. He is now spreading his lies on other message boards. But that may be ok. Normal people hardly ever believe rumors even if they engage in them. They are coming to my board to find out, that’s all anyone can ask.
Love
Leroy
I wouldn’t expect skeptics to be anything.
I wish you guys could somehow get off the negative slide and start learning what lies outside the box you live in.
I did find a picture of me at the train station going to boot camp in my old pictures. The girl is my wife now of 46 years. I was 17 at the time, would be 18 in 3 months. I have only one stripe, just a beginner. Sigh
http://www.ndeweb.com/discus/messages/24/6145.html?1054438240
Love
Leroy
So, if I find you posting your erroneous claims regarding evolution in any more threads, I can point back to this post to establish that you have lied? That sounds like a plan.
Webster is one of the sloppiest dictionaries, especially when it comes to religious matters (harking back to Webster himself). Any linguistic scholar could explain that “a”(without) “theist” (god belief) means exactly what we use it to mean, and that the other usage comes from a long history of slander and accusing non-believers of hating and denying god, simply ignoring the idea of a lack of belief.
An agnostic is one who does not KNOW if god exists, or believes that it cannot be known. But that doesn’t answer the quesiton of belief: does one believe or not? Being an agnostic doesn’t answer the question, and in fact I am an agnostic atheist.
But even that is beside the point. I didn’t call myself an atheist until YOU used the term to describe ME. And you did so without knowing whether I believed there was no god, or simply didn’t believe in a god. So you yourself are an example of the very sloppiness and presumption that leads people to assume that non-believers must have positive, anti-god beliefs.
As has been pointed out to you before, plenty of spiritual people on this board, from Polycarp to Libertarian, are some of the most widely respected people on this board.
The people who post here “to no avail” are neither characteristically spiritual or non-spiritual. They are simply those people who refuse to discuss matters openly, honestly, and directly. They are people who dismiss evidence without explanation or argument, and then deny that it was ever even offered in the first place.
I am simply saying that I do not have the belief that there is a God. Neither do I have a belief that there is no god.
The lack of belief in a god (the word litterally means “without god belief”). That includes people who DO believe that there is no god, but those sorts of people are a subset of atheists, not a superset.
I didn’t “decide” to be an atheist. Rather, I have never had a good reason to decide to be a theist. Believing a particular belief is a step one takes, usually because of some motivating reason. I currently have no such motivating reason, just like I have no particular reason to run around believing in aliens, though for all I know there might well be aliens out there.
Did you make a decision to travel to Mongolia yesterday? If no, did you decide to NOT travel to Mongolia?
Again, you’re thinking about it backwards. It is some force that makes one be a THEIST, not the other way around. It is theism that is the positive belief: atheism is simply the lack of that belief.
[quotw]Back up in the thread you said all things needed to be confirmed by inference, and now you say different, using a bunch of generalizations.
[/quote]
Eh? Where did I say different? I said that IF we are going to make any conclusions about our observations of the world around us, then we are going to need inference. But not just any old inference: VALID inferences.
That’s exactly what I was asking you, remember? How come you can use induction when you are arguing that you served on the navy, but evolutionary science can’t use it to prove common descent?
Saying that some things (the earth is flat) are NOT confirmed by our use of logical inference is NOT a denial of inference, it is a denial of those claims. The other creation stories are not illegitimate because they try to use inference: just the opposite. They are illegitimate because they FAIL to use logically sound inferences.
If you are going to do science, then you are going to have to admit that some things can be disproven by evidence and argument. It isn’t a liscence to start declaring that everything you can dream up is true.
I’ve just demonstrated that I have no contradicted myself, and that you are the one who is confused.
Then you are simply being a hypocrite whenever you try to use evidence to prove your claims.
What “way” is that, exactly? The way of the christian? The way of the American? The way of the “patriot?” How about we let everybody decide for themselves instead of trying to enforce patriotism or some vague way of life?
I don’t claim to completely understand Lekatt’s attitudes, but from what I’ve read they really aren’t all that admirable to me. Anybody who disagrees with him is “misguided”, “ignorant” or doesn’t know the truths which apparently he alone knows. He refuses to accept information that contradicts what he believes and constantly insists on “proof” which, given that this is a message board, not a laboratory, is not physically present and never will be. If he can’t be handed some sort of physical “proof” of anybody else’s assertions he considers them to be false and the proof nonexistent. If people seem unduly interested in Lekatt’s history it’s because statements he’s made on this and other sites cast a lot of doubt on his honesty.
Lekatt is a crank. He posts only to promote his personal agenda and attack anybody who disagrees with it. He has no knowledge of how to debate and despite his signature, shows no love and very little respect for others on this board. Well, fair’s fair I suppose; I personally have no respect for him, though it’s as a result of his tactics.
Well, Millum, let me be the first to say thank you for correcting me. Here I’ve been laboring under the assumption that I didn’t believe in god. You really showed me. I’m just lonely and misguided.
Oh, was that sarcasm? Yes, I suppose it was. Well, then let me say this. Don’t speak for others. You have no idea what anybody else believes or doesn’t believe. I personally do not believe in the Judeo-Christian god, or Allah or any other deity. I don’t believe in an afterlife, heaven or hell. I don’t pray. I’m quite comfortable with my opinions and have no problems with the universe or my place in it.
Oh, I forgot to mention the irony which always seems to escape Lekatt (and others), he constantly cites his own NDE website as “proof” that near death experiences exist, yet refuses to accept any other website as proof or evidence. Of course, as I said above, they aren’t really proof, just discussions and presentations. Sadly he doesn’t seem to understand that’s all his is too.
Pot? Kettle?
You have to understand, lekatt was raised in a God-believing household, and so naturally he assumes that everybody else was raised the same way.
Furthermore, from watching a lot of badly-scripted movies and TV shows, I’m sure he “knows” that all atheists used to believe in God, but “rejected” Him when they were young because God disappointed them in some way (e.g. God killed their favorite grandpa, God didn’t get them a tricycle for their 4th birthday, etc.). That’s right – all atheists really secretly do believe in God, they just don’t like God. :rolleyes:
Apos already covered this pretty well. Also, stheism is generally further divided into “hard” atheism and “soft” atheism. “Hard” atheism is the type you, and many other people think of, the belief that there is no god. “Soft” atheism is the lacking of belief for or against god (The “skeptics” of religion). I never “became” a soft atheist, I’ve always been one. Before I had heard of any gods, I obviously didn’t believe in them. After the concept had been brought to me, none of the thousands of gods in the various human religions had enough evidence to make me believe in them.
And I’d also like to chime in on this comment:
…to add that you really have no idea what, or who, you’re talking about.
>Webster is one of the sloppiest dictionaries, especially when it comes to religious matters
Yep…if they don’t say what you want, just accuse 'em. Sounds good.
a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Disbelief is not synonomous with denial.
Here’s one I like to pull out of my hat (or other orifice) from time to time:
“Let me ask you this. Do you believe in Zeus? (No.) Do you believe in Odin? (No.) Do you believe in Allah? (No!) Well, then, that’s 3 counts on which you are an atheist. I just happen to believe in one fewer god than you do.”
Well,* Millum**, let me be the first to say thank you for correcting me. Here I’ve been laboring under the assumption that I didn’t believe in god. You really showed me. I’m just lonely and misguided.* -** Photopat** said sarcastically
Well,** Photopat**, it seems you are a bit hard headed, come, lets try a thought experiment…
First, close your eyes and try to conceptualise the absence of everything, that is, “nothingness”. See…you can’t do it. This is because you need a “something” to provide contrast for the nothingness.
Now, conceptualise something being created out of the nothingness that you can’t conceptualise…of course you can’t, no human can.
Ok, now open your eyes and look around, do you see something other than nothing? Yes?
Well, Mister Photopat, that something you see is God, or The Creator, or the First Cause, or whatever you would like to call the process that brought forth something from nothing.
You might like many sad malcontents argue that nothing is better than something, but if you have a honestman’s respect for the language you will agree with that there is no such thing as an atheist, except in the world of the insane.
Milum, you’re right about one thing. Nobody can conceptualize “nothingness,” or “oblivion.” I’ve said that before myself. We can define it, certainly, but to visualize it isn’t possible. If a person tries to imagine dying and ceasing to exist the idea or image in the mind will be one of awareness of nothing, or to put it another way, of floating in a dark void. I agree with you on that.
Of course, that doesn’t mean such a state doesn’t or can’t exist, only that we can’t imagine it in our minds. We can’t imagine infinity either, but the concept does exist.
I think it’s because of that inability to imagine oblivion that people have come to believe in life after death. But that doesn’t mean they’re right.
As to me being a “sad malcontent,” well, call me what you like, as long as you don’t go over the libel boundary. I don’t care. If you believe atheists don’t exist you must not get out much or read much.
If you have an “honestman’s” respect for language and for people’s opinions you’ll agree that there are atheists, but you just aren’t among them.
But, if atheism makes me insane, then so be it.
AAAAAAAAGH!!! THE BATFLAKES ARE EATING MY NOSE!!! TEAR OFF MY FACE! TEAR OFF MY FACE!
Does that make you feel better?
This charge is well backed up. You might try checking out websters’ other religious and supernatural definitions, and note that when they aren’t talking about THEIR beliefs, they refer to things as “who some believe” or even (in older versions) “the superstition that”: but when it comes to God, it’s just “the creator of the universe” (howya doin?)
Many atheists have protested being defined this way, and if anyone should get to determine how they are defined, it is the group being defined. But believers are a majority, and so the slander is the majority usage. Because, in case you didn’t know: that’s what dictionaries define: usage. At the very least, atheists can claim a technical exemption the same way scientists do for their use of “theory.”
athelas’ foot, meet athelas’ shotgun. You of course, were obviously careful not to give any of the definitions that don’t fit your case, such as:
"2. A godless person. [Obs.]
Syn: Infidel; unbeliever."
I also notice that you’ve avoided the use of the OED (which happens to be one of the most authoritative of dictionaries).
Regardless, the point is moot. lekatt has ALREADY demonstrated that he is willing to call a person that does not believe in god an atheist. Game. Set. Match. Goodnight.
I get that this is supposed to be insulting, but beyond that, I’m not even sure what you mean (do YOU know, or are you just triyng to sound hip?) Who argues that “nothing” is better than “something.” Who argues that there is nothing at all? It’s axiomatic that there is something, if our discussions are to have any meaning at all. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a god exists.
Oh please. When come back, bring argument.
Agreed: you can’t conceptualize nothing, because there is nothing to conceptualize. So what? First of all, what does that have to do with anything (our ability to conceptualize something)? Second of all, why are doing this thought experiment in the first place? Who said anything about there being nothing?
You can’t even keep you terminology straight: there can’t be something “other than” nothng, because “nothing” is not a “something” to be “other than.”
When was there ever nothing? Were you around to see it? Have you any evidence of it at all? So how can you just assume there was ever nothing in the first place?
And the fact that there is something doesn’t imply that something started the something unless you are willing to accept infinate regress. Finally, “atheist” refers to “theism” which is the belief, not in “something” but in a DEITY. Atheism is not the same thing as nihilism or soliphism.
But then, I shouldn’t have to explain all that to the “smartest man in the southeast” or whatever you call yourself.
Hey, it’s the OP just reminding everyone of the original purpose of this thread…
Aww, screw it.
I feel for you, blue22. I gave up on this thing a while ago.
This thread brought to you by Amtrak. Accident free for the last … say, what time is it?
So, “God” is just another word for quantum vacuum fluctuation, then?