none of the above

Interesting, isn't it? Page not found - American AtheistsLook about 6 paras down.

Oh...Dogmatic purile intellectually bankrupt drivel. I beg to quibble.

quote:

---

We need to know upon what we base ourselves. Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.

---

1) Classical materialism died with the birth of modern physics.2) The division of the division of the world into 'natural' and 'supernatural' is silly. The second someone finds evidence for something thought to be 'supernatural' it ceases to be supernatural and becomes simply natural. The distinction should center around 'evidence' vs. 'lack of evidence.'------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

What is she [Madalyn Murray O’Hair] talking about then? The Atheist.Org site gave her 1962 essay the first spot on the reading list. I've heard how influential she was to the American Atheist movement...but honestly don't know much more about it. The "materialist philosophy" rant kind of struck me as dogmatic, but I refer to the previous sentence.Does her opinion carry weight with atheists? If so, then why does your opinion differ? If not, then why is her mug plastered all over the site? Are there competing "factions" of atheists?The reason I posted this quote was in response to PaulK's comment: I figured the American Atheist Organization (and Madalyn Murray O’Hair) would satisfy the "respectable source" requirement.[This message has been edited by Geno, 06-19-2003]

And like I said it doesn't say anything about absolute CERTAINTY that there are no Gods.So far I've been sticking with "atheist" or "agnostic" as they are used in ordinary speech, but the fact is that there are other usages and "agnosticism" is often classed as a form of "atheism". (For instance "agnosticism" is explicitly listed as one of the definitions of "atheism" in _The Penguin Dictionary of Religions_).

quote:

---

Does her opinion carry weight with atheists? If so, then why does your opinion differ? If not, then why is her mug plastered all over the site? Are there competing "factions" of atheists?

---

Not exactly. Atheists only share one thing in common - the rejection of religion. Therefore, there is no coordinated body of dogma which lays out atheism in an authoritative manner, nor is there likely to be. I can easily disagree with her or anyone elses opinion on what atheism is or should be becuase I am not bound into either a moral code or an institutional heirarchy.On Materialism:
I would disagree that classical Materialism died with modern science. There is nothing in formal Materialism that insists on absolute apparent causality or the explicability of the universe; the qualified modes of understanding we have developed since realising that the natural world was not as strictly and linearly poredictable as had been initially thought does not IMO undermine any of the principles of materialism; let alone Dialectical Materialism which actually relishes uncertainty makes a virtue out of necessity.

Hi Geno.I'd like to correct a misapprehension here. There is no "atheist movement", there is no over-arching "atheist organization" that is taken as definitive, and there are no "atheist philosophers" or writers whose works are taken as guiding lights or whose writings are taken as gospel. The existence of any of these would relegate atheism to the same level as religion. It isn't. The only single thing that even remotely links all "atheists" is a rejection of theistic explanations for "life, the universe, and everything". And as you can probably see from the discussion on this thread alone, even that is open to interpretation. Beyond that, every single atheist of my acquaintance has arrived at their stance from a different direction - and has different politics, philosophies, worldviews, etc. The image to keep in your mind when discussing any "atheist movement" is of herding cats... So, in answer to your question: O'Haire doesn't speak for me, and the AAO doesn't represent me. Just 'cause they're Americans who happen to be atheists doesn't mean they even represent a putative "mainstream" atheism.

LOL! OH, I can see that all right!wr/Geno

quote:

---

In fact, I believe there is a great deal of power in a proper submission, and it can overthrow a bad authority without force.

---

So, I really don't understand this at all. How does submitting to a bad authority end up overthrowing it, particularly in a marriage?I mean, everything I've ever learned about the psychology of abusive people, for example, says that it doesn't matter haw "good" the victim is or how much they try to do what the abuser wants, the abuser will most likely end up continuing to abuse the victim.So, I guess I'd like an example of what you consider a "proper submission". because this one has me stumped.

Sorry, Schraf, it's possible I should have kept my mouth shut (uh, my hands off the keyboard).I didn't like the negative picture of submission, because I think it can be very powerful. I'll explain in a second. However, I sounded way more concrete than I should have.I believe some wives ought to dump some husbands, not just submit to them. I believe some leaders of groups, whether religious, social or whatever, ought to be fought (I mean verbally, administratively, or legally, not with fists or weapons).However, I also believe there are times that a smile and a "no problem," repeated to a leader of whatever form changes things, at least over time. That can mean tolerating things I don't like or bearing some mistreatment. It doesn't mean violating my conscience, which I won't do for anyone. In such a case submission means taking whatever the consequences are of not submitting, whether that be being fired or whatever.I guess I just believe it's a principle that works. I have no good natural explanation to offer for why you should trust that it works, but I've sure seen a lot of people dropped from high places after mistreating me (or others). I've tried it, because I'm a religous man who believes in certain principles. I don't know that it's necessary to share the stories, as you would probably call them coincidences, and I have no way to prove they're not.Sorry that's so vague.[edited to correct some pitiful grammar][This message has been edited by truthlover, 06-19-2003]

Geno asks, in referring to Madalyn Murray O'Hair:

quote:

---

If not, then why is her mug plastered all over the site?

---

Because she was the founder of American Atheists along with her son. One would expect to find her group to think highly of her and publish her works.She died under very mysterious circumstances.As others have told you, atheists tend to be a very diverse group. This is what you would expect from a group that is defined by the lack of a particular trait rather than by the presence of one. There will be atheists that tend to have similar frames of mind and they will come together, but it isn't like there's a grand high pooh-bah of atheism.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Thanks Rrhain,I'm really just learning about it, interesting reactions though. It seems that some would define Agnosticism as a subset of Atheism.Any Agnostics who would like to refute or support that?I'm not sure if I agree or not. I just know that, as CrashFrog has defined his atheism, I'm not atheist. Right now, I'm just unconvinced either way. Also, I'm not saying that you can't say that you are unconvinced and yet call yourself an atheist. I just think it connotes something to the general public about your beliefs. In that case, I am more convinced that I should stick with the Agnostic label.

quote:

---

The Atheist.Org site gave her 1962 essay the first spot on the reading list.

---

I'm on top of my fan club's reading list too. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

HA! Yuk yuk

quote:

---

I didn't like the negative picture of submission, because I think it can be very powerful. I'll explain in a second. However, I sounded way more concrete than I should have.

​

I believe some wives ought to dump some husbands, not just submit to them. I believe some leaders of groups, whether religious, social or whatever, ought to be fought (I mean verbally, administratively, or legally, not with fists or weapons).

---

I'm with you so far.Of course, I don't think that wives should ever submit to their husbands just because they happen to be expected to do so to be a "good Christian wife". That's a pretty transparent religious control mechanism.

quote:

---

However, I also believe there are times that a smile and a "no problem," repeated to a leader of whatever form changes things, at least over time. That can mean tolerating things I don't like or bearing some mistreatment. It doesn't mean violating my conscience, which I won't do for anyone. In such a case submission means taking whatever the consequences are of not submitting, whether that be being fired or whatever.

​

I guess I just believe it's a principle that works. I have no good natural explanation to offer for why you should trust that it works, but I've sure seen a lot of people dropped from high places after mistreating me (or others). I've tried it, because I'm a religous man who believes in certain principles. I don't know that it's necessary to share the stories, as you would probably call them coincidences, and I have no way to prove they're not.

---

What you are talking about isn't submission. It's passive resistance.And I don't think that people in high places being dropped after mistreating people is either coincidence nor magic. It's more like tribal cosequences.Anyway, you would have to have kept detailed, accurate records of all the people in high places who abused you, of those who didn't abuse you, and what ended up happening to each of them in order to go back and accurately know what happened.Because we are human and humans are all terribly biased, we are likely to remember the bad people getting toppled much more than the good people getting the same treatment. So, you don't know if there is a statistically significant effect going on or not. All you have is your memory, and we all know how reliable that is.

Ok, Schraf, I'm happy to leave it there.