Atheism

It's a literary, or semantic, theory. That opposites are in symbiosis. Both are needed for the existence of either as with the sword and the distaff. Roget's Thesuarus is laid out in opposites. Atheism cannot exist without religion. A mental state envisaging no gods requires gods to exist as a mental construct before they can be thought of as not existing. Being anothing is impossible.

Hence, and I've been trying to explain it for 7 years now, the only sensible discussion concerns the consequences, either individually (psychologically) or collectively (socially), of theism and atheism. How each affect, yes affect, the human being, or the society, in the conditions at the time. I would argue that atheists, if they are the real deal, would have to use "effects". They cannot recognise "feeling" except as an effect of a cause. Which is a right can of worms. Although not for Dr. Benway in Naked Lunch.
He could get any effect he wanted.

Now--consequences for the individual do not have priority over consequences for society because the individual is only part of the society and dependent upon it whereas society is not dependent on the individual. We are all eminently dispensable. Some more than others.

Hence to argue exclusively from the individual point of view on this important matter is the hallmark of egoism. To do so argues that the consequences for the individual have priority over the consequences for society. Which, of course, is a madness. The absolute Monarch or the Great Leader is on the end of it for a start and they have a poor track record from an evolutionary point of view. And they don't do political satire.

The mightiest wisdom in the land drew up a Constitution which was intended to bury them both once and for all and especially in the territories of the Youknighted States of Ayemeureaka and, just to make it a proper test, for a land where "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do." Some feat. So far. We cannot possible imagine Liberty's torch being wrested from her triumphant hand. I can't. No more On The Road Agains. Bloody hell. It would be like watching paint dry for ******* ever.

That's the root of the argument over the TSA's handling of the passengers. They are called passengers because they are passing from one state of being into another in a far more dramatic way than I pass from one state of being into another as time elapses, with no stopwatch, as the ball-game see-saws to and from the team I have picked in rjb's NFL Pick-Um game where, in defence of the Title I won last season which I am currently favourite to retain and presently leading the field.

So it's "social consequences" or bleating like a lamb which has lost its Mom. They are serious egotists.

I could make a case that the social consequences of atheism would be to our advantage. I cannot help wonder why avowed atheists steer clear of making such a case.

I said 'kind of thing' implying that it is like that common saying. No, I don't see religion as my enemy no matter how hard it tries to be.

In my case wonder no more.

I could make a case too but I don't for two main reasons:

- It's a lot of work to make a decent essay in English.

- The reward is meager compared to the effort..

spendi, It's because atheist is not a formal group like religion. Most of us live within religious societies.

In which case Francois there is no point you writing anything. Or not from our point of view at least.

I can give an opinion with fewer words.

Even short sentences can have meaning..

And I don't know what "our point of view" means in this case..

Is that a royal "our"?

Ah, now you're twisting people's words, preparing to play the personal-offense card again. No, the religious are not the enemies of atheists, even though religion, by and large, is an enemy of reason. Think "love the sinner, hate the sin"---only in reverse.

Intrepid must have attended a special school to twist normal issues into a challenge in reverse. He does that sort of thing often.

Is this the hand of God.

Some have their own agenda and this is unfortunate. I believe that no means no. The offer can be made but then it is ended and the annoyance factor should be ended. Sorry for your experience.

The negativity is certainly yours. Your insults are legendary.

See above.

Maybe I have misunderstood you in the past! Could you please explain in more detail so that I can understand you more indepth?

I do apologise if I have come across the wrong way in the past as I do find it to be ignorant of me or anyoneone else who uses hatefulness to exspress themselves!

Why do you continue to twist my meanings and presume when you have no idea of what I meant. What is this personal-offense nonsense? I said nothing of me personally as you would have seen if you had read my question without your bias.

I twisted no words. I responded to the words that were written and asked a reasonable question based on what I read. If your interpretation is different, then that is your perogative.

You seem to wallow in your own self importance.

You are showing your ignorance again.

Seems more people on a2k see you as the "odd" one here. Not many mistake what I post, and I will answer questions when they are not as stupid as the ones you ask.

You've got that right.

Taking it out of context will make you look more stupid.

But as you decide what are stupid questions you only need answer the ones you want to.

Do you scratch your balls more than once a day?

How do you confuse a Kerryman?
Place 3 shovels against a wall and ask him to take his pick.


Only messing.

No worries <sharpens pitchfork>