Atheism Revisited

by Brandon Kumm, Aug 19, 2007

In any discussion about existential issues, sometimes it is the words that get in the way. I believe that is what happened last week with my article on atheism and religion. Here are some corrections, clarifications and expansions.

Page 1 of 2 | Prev 12 Next»

In my article last week titled, “Why Atheism is no more valid than Religion” I attempted to show why atheism is in fact spiritual just as is religion. Also, I tried to show that there were basically only two camps. Well, based on the feedback I received I tried to do too much with too little. It is difficult, to say the least, to try and promulgate a new way of thinking in a two page essay. To rectify this situation I will try to articulate exactly what I was attempting to say in a series of articles, rather than one sweeping essay.

Further, there were problems with my definitions of words. Some didn't like the term "spiritualism". Others had difficulties with the word, "belief". I used definitions with which I was familiar, but which had different meanings to different people. This is a common difficulty which I will also rectify.

Also, many people had problems with my logic. Logic, unfortunately, is something that is more difficult than many realize and it is a study that causes arguments among people far more learned than myself. If my logic seemed tortured, I apologize and I will attempt to rectify this situation as well.

Lastly, the title itself came under some scrutiny. For this, I take full responsibility. The title was written in such a way as to elicit a particular response, which it did, but it was in some ways disingenuous. Truly, atheism is far more valid than religion, of this there is no question. I should have titled the article, “Why Atheism is no more valid than Theism”, but I doubt that I would have gotten the same response. After, all the point is for people to read these articles, not just for me to write them to make myself feel better. So, with that mea culpa out of the way, on to the essay!

Spiritualism Defined

Spiritualism is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: “a system of belief and practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, especially through mediums”. I can see, by this definition, why people would take offense, especially atheists, with being called a spiritualist. I would certainly not define myself this way and I would not define atheists this way either. However, Merriam-Webster defines spiritualism this way: “the view that spirit is a prime element of reality”. Now, this definition is much more in line with what I was trying to articulate.

So, what is spirit? Really, that is the crux of the matter. If one defines spirit, as does the first definition in most dictionaries, as the force which gives life to living beings or as a supernatural being or essence, then the argument that atheists are spiritual is simply ludicrous. Atheists do not believe in such things and neither do I. These two definitions are the most common and do provoke a specific response, especially in those people that reject the notion of the supernatural. However, another definition states that spirit may be defined as: “the activating or essential principle influencing a person” or as “a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature”. These definitions are much more in keeping with what I mean by spiritual.

To define spiritualism then, let us say that spiritualism is defined as the assertion or conviction held by a person that is the essential principle influencing that person. A spiritualist is a person having a disposition that is defined by a particular essential principle. Under this definition, atheists, theists, agnostics and spiritualists (the colloquial definition) are spiritual to a greater or lesser degree.

Now, some would argue that it is simply hubris for me to define spiritualism. This may be so, I am certainly not a "great scholar" and have not spent fifty years in the study of such things, but I find that that which is divides us is far narrower than that which unites us. If we can come to terms with what it means to be spiritual and respect that meaning equally then I contend that we will advance as a species.

Belief Defined

Many people had difficulties with the word "belief". Belief is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: “a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof” or alternately as: “a firmly held opinion”. Merriam-Webster defines it this way: “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing” or as this: “conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence”. The two great dictionaries of the English language can not agree on the definition of belief in that one asserts that it is a “feeling that something exists, especially without proof” and the other that it is a “conviction of truth…based upon examination of evidence”, so how might we define belief in the context of my definition of spiritualism?

Page 1 of 2 | Prev 12 Next»

8
Liked It

I Like It!

Tags:

Myths About Being an Atheist | Mere Atheism: Why Atheism Is No More Valid Than Religion

Latest Articles in Religion

Religious Dogmas Being Used by Other Christian Denominations Against the Roman Catholic Church | Of What Use is Religion?

Comments (36)

Subscribe by RSS

#1 by Peter Canadian, Aug 21, 2007

That's better. Somewhat confusing with "Russell's teapot" and the argument about proving a negative, but I'm with you in that I BELIEVE that there is no deity and that it is my "spirit" of belief that leads me to many conclusions in life and therefore fits your definition. However, I don't THINK that there are mole-people on Pluto, but I would not admit to a BELIEF in the absence of mole-people on Pluto. Anyone want to join my church of the Lack of Mole-People on Pluto? Atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a deity. An atheist can simply be an atheist because they admit only to what they can see and touch and experience. The lack of God would simply be a by-product of that state.

#2 by Dominic also Canadian, Aug 21, 2007

I have always felt that atheism is a religion. All the recent arguments (and some older ones, such as Bertrand Russell's) are not a-theistic, but rather anti-religion. I have not read any cogent arguments for the non-existence of any particular deity, only reasonable refutations of specific religions or religious practices.

I too am personally a-religious. I am not atheistic. I happen to believe that there is some general "spirit" as it were that humans (at least) can tap into/connect with that is perhaps the source/power for many so called transcendental experiences including but not limited to fire walking, self-suspended animation, and other occasional paranormal phenomena, as well as the mundane feeling of well being experienced by many in their religious devotions of prayer, meditation and mindfulness.

Religion simply appears to be a human response to the unknowable, and I agree that it is no more valid than denial. The sad part is the oppression and ignorance that seem to well up from religion almost as soon as it is codified. This oppression and ignorance also comes to some degree from atheists, who mistakenly believe that they have "proved" their position, and therefore all non-atheists are wrong, and need to be "converted".

#3 by Alejandro, Aug 21, 2007

Just one thing, don't talk as if your arguments are scientific knowledge. To contribute to scientific knowledge your arguments should be able to be falsifiable and anything related to beliefs isn't in any way falsifiable; so any arguments about god, or spiritual, existence is just as valid as poetry.

It would be very different if the arguments were about the effects of religion, spiritualism or atheism. It's easy to argument that religious people are more prone to mental illnesses or cognitive disorders than none religious people, and it could be a very interesting research.

Cheers!

#4 by Earl of Sidgwick, Aug 21, 2007

No. No. No. No. Your "sky is blue" argument has absolutely nothing at all to do with the "proving a negative" or "argument from ignorance," ahem, arguments.

If you make the extraordinary claim, you bear the burden of proof. If you claim the sky is not blue, which the rest of the color-seeing, English-speaking world has agreed to call the color, the burden of proof is in your court.

If you claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity with an interest in prolonged hospital stays, SATs, sporting events, and other personal matters, you are making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof rests with you.

If I claim that an omnipresent, invisible, three-humped celestial camel controls the weather and slot machines, the burden of proof lies with me, and my detractors can sleep well knowing that I'm wrong. Knowing, not assuming or hoping.

The extraordinary claim is NOT as equally valid as the refusal to accept the lunacy.

#5 by David Jones, Aug 22, 2007

Oh my! You certainly have gone to a lot of effort to write this thing.

Let me pose this question: Is there any such thing as an atheist?

This may seem like a shocking question, but hear me out.

The ancient Greeks used to identify almost all non-Greeks as Barbari. (barbarians) Jews see others as Gentiles. Muslims see infidels. The Civilized see savages. If you don't agree with Senator Joseph McCarthy you are a communist. Prove you are not one. It's a futile exercise.

You get the idea... Some have classified themselves as THEISTS (which they have every right to do) Then they have invented the label "atheist" which simply means anyone who doesn't fit into the first category.

Too many people have fallen prey to this type of argument. They have accepted the label and argued on the Theists terms... Why bother?

You can believe in Zeus, or Vishnu, the Thunderbird, or Faeries. People who do not share these beliefs do not have to defend themselves for believing otherwise.

In fact those who share Theistic beliefs don't have anything to prove either... unless they cross the line.

What is that line? You would have to prove the existence of your particular deity if you use it to justify any limits to my freedom.

Remember: They that define the terms win the argument...

Cheers

#6 by Art Tidesco, Aug 22, 2007

Wow! now we are getting close to the heart of the matter, what binds us is not religion at all but an agreed use of logic and language matters of proper concern primarily to philosophers. Bring on Mr Mr Ludwig Wittgenstein :-) Philosophy is not a theory but an activity :-) and everyone can join in :-)

Cheers

Ralph

#7 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

Earl of S

You missed the point. And it has everything to do with it.

The initial statements: the sky is blue, the sky is not blue are equally valid. Now, once evidence is presented one way or the other one claim can be 'proved' false. However this claim: there is a deity, there is a not deity, has no evidence either way. Therefore the initial statement is still valid.

Further, when you went off about:
"If you claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity with an interest in prolonged hospital stays, SATs, sporting events, and other personal matters" you were on about something that I wasn't arguing.

There is ample evidence that a personal, intervening deity does not exist. There are tests that could be done to see if such a deity exists. However, to argue that there is no deity, for which there is neither positive nor negative evidence, would be much harder and equally as valid as those who argue for a deity.

#8 by Peter Canadian, Aug 22, 2007

David Jones, you pretty much agreed with me that atheism, as a state of NOT, is basically meaningless. However, if atheists were the rule, and not the exception, you would be right. Unfortunately, check the stats, we have to justify ourselves as we are the minority.
I guess post-Czar Russia would be an example of state sanctioned atheism, inflicting the official dogma on the masses. Nice to know it works both ways. What IS China going to do with those dangerous Falun Gongers?

#9 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

David,

That was part of my initial point, but that got people all up in arms. You are right in that atheism was initially used by Deists and Theists to ridicule those that did not believe in a deity. I argued (poorly) that really there are only two camps, the religious and those who are not (spiritualists). Well, that got everyone all up in arms. That's why I wrote this article and it looks like I'm going to have to write a few more.

#10 by Mike Crowl, Aug 22, 2007

You say, Truly, atheism is far more valid than religion, of this there is no question.
Can you explain how you come to this conclusion? You don't appear to in either this article or the previous one.
Valid on what basis?

#11 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

Mike Crowl

Atheism and theism each are based on an unprovable assertion (belief) that there is a god, not a god, that god is irrelevant or that god is a strictly human creation. This, in and of itself, is not dangerous to anyone. If you were to believe that when you turn on the light switch little fairies are released and go light the light bulb, that is your business. It doesn't harm anyone.

Now, religion goes several steps further than this. First, it demands that whichever one it is (especially the two great monotheistic religions Islam and Christianity) is the only one that can or should be. It demands absolute obedience to the idea that only one 'faith' should exist on the Earth and it is willing to impose that by whatever means necessary. Second, religion retards science and social growth. And on and on and on. Atheism does none of these things. Hence to my mind atheism is more valid than religion. I mistitled my first article as I explained in the first couple of paragraphs of this one.

Thank you.

#12 by David Jones, Aug 22, 2007

RE: Brandon

You are still falling into the same oppositional thought pattern. There are not necessarily two camps. "Us and them." You may label yourself "religious"(your word from the last post though this is not the same as theist)but that does not make everyone not in your camp a "spiritualist"

Also, sadly, many people with some type of belief do not accept the validity of any other belief. How many Christian sects believe that all others are going to hell? How many chosen people, true believers and enlightened ones think that all others are living a lie? To lump them all into one allied camp and and say these are "theists" and the others who do not share one of these beliefs is an atheist is rather silly.

See it this way... When one camp takes it upon itself to not only build and define an enemy camp but to populate it with its chosen enemies, we can only call that said "camp" a prison.

Yawn, rather tired
I won't play Atheist to your Theist.

#13 by David Jone again, Aug 22, 2007

RE: Peter Canadian.

Firstly, I disagree that a minority must justify itself to the majority. A majority of people believing something does not make it more valid nor more correct.

Also, modern Western societies are secular societies that apply civil law not religious law (though that is somewhat at risk in the United States)Individual rights to believe as you wish are preserved but we do not live in religious societies. Secularists are the majority. I am a secularist and live in a secular society called Canada. I am part of the majority.

#14 by Ar-lock, Aug 22, 2007

So many things happen everyday that their are bound to be incredible coincidences.

So many states of mind and feelings loop and feedback that there are bound to be "visions, lucid dreams, and revelations"

People are too self important to realize that "religious" moments happen to anyone... anyone half interesting anyways.

We need hard statistics to prove that improbable sensations and actions happen to everyone, everyday, even to atheists.

We are a small fraction that refuse to be fooled.

Does god really talk more to crazies, mushroom eaters and the sleep deprived.. gimme a break.

#15 by Earl of Sidgwick, Aug 22, 2007

If this sky is, indeed, the color that we all agree is called “blue,” then to say the sky is not blue is NOT equally valid. Initially, finally or at any point in between.

Your argument leaves the door open for lunatics – religious or otherwise – to make any outrageous claim they want and place the burden of proof on anyone who questions their statement.

If I say there is a hat on my head, and you are standing directly across from me and can clearly see that there is no hat, you might be inclined to say, “No, there is no hat on your head, sir.”

Following your logic, I could reply, “Prove that there is no hat on my head.” To which you could say, “I’m looking at your friggin’ head, and there is no hat.”

I tell you that it is invisible. You quickly swipe your hand over my head and say, “See, I would have knocked the hat off your head if it were there.”

Unfazed, I reply, “This is a very special hat. No normal human hand can touch it.” Playing devil’s advocate, you ask me, “How do you take it off when you sleep at night.” And I say, “Why I use my invisible, all-powerful third arm which extends from my left knee cap.”

You look at me oddly, and I say, “Prove that I don’t.”

My claim of an invisible hat and/or third arm has no validity. You would not be obligated to prove that I have neither, to know that what I am saying has no basis in reality.

Just because someone can dream up a scenario, does not make that scenario as valid as the real world and it certainly does not place the burden on any sane person to disprove the scenario.

That said, humans are limited in their understanding of the natural world by the evolutionary process that got us to this point. If we are lucky, we have our five senses and a consciousness. Everything we understand, even scientifically, should be qualified with the humble proviso, “to the best of our knowledge.”

This does not however, lend equal footing, to any claims of deities, souls or the so-called supernatural. Just because there are gaps in knowledge, does not mean you fill them with unverifiable fairy tales.

#16 by Jonathan Casey, Aug 22, 2007

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Henry Roberts

#17 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

David Jones --

Either you are being purposely obtuse or there is a basic breakdown in communication somewhere.

I am postulating that there are two camps. There may not be. Maybe there are a hundred or five hundred or just one camp, I don't know for sure, but I think that there are just two.

Further, you have no idea what I really believe. In both of these last two articles I have tried very hard to not espouse (except for my definition of spiritual) any position.

I am NOT a theist. I am NOT a deist. If someone must put a label on me then I suppose one would call me an atheist. But, you're apparently too bored by the conversation and so certain that you know what is being said that you won't take the time to actually consider the point.

Have a wonderful rest of the day.

#18 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

Earl of S --

Read it again. What did I say? Well, let's review, shall we?

"The initial statements: the sky is blue, the sky is not blue are equally valid. Now, once evidence is presented one way or the other one claim can be 'proved' false. However this claim: there is a deity, there is a not deity, has no evidence either way. Therefore the initial statement is still valid."

Just because you want something to be true, doesn't necessarily make it so. Really.

#19 by Brandon , Aug 22, 2007

Earl --

I'm at least partially convinced that you don't understand simple English.

It is a logical fallacy to say that something exists when there is no proof for that existence. It is also a logical fallacy to say that something does not exist because there is no proof of its existence.

It just is. I don't know where you get the idea that the agreed upon standard is that the burden of proof is with the person making the claim, but if you want to do it that way:

"There is no god." "There is a god." Both claims. Both extraordinary. Right?

Just because you don't want there to be a god doesn't mean there isn't one. By the way, I would be considered an atheist as I do not believe in 'god'. You have fun now.

#20 by , Aug 22, 2007

Wrong again. I'm not surprised, though.

"There is no god," is NOT an extraordinary claim. Only brainwashed religious people think that is an extraordinary claim.

If a old man with a white beard (to use a popular image of god) stood in front of me performing miracle after miracle, and I denied that he existed, THAT would be an extraordinary claim.

A person can't just make stuff up and say that denying said stuff exists is an extraordinary claim. That's a perfectly ordinary claim.

Why would anybody NOT want there to be a god? Who wouldn't want enternal salvation for being a decent person? The fact is, the evidence stacks overwhelmingly, if not unamimously, against the existence of any deity.

There is no Easter Bunny. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Tooth Fairy. The Boogey Man is not real. To say any of these "deities" exist would be an extaordinary claim. To say that they don't, is to follow reason, logic and facts.

The latter is valid, the former is not.

You are a sad little man. Please do not reproduce.

#21 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

Earl --

You are so polite and learned it is difficult for me to know where to start.

As there is no evidence either way it IS an extraordinary claim to say that there is no deity. But, whether or not it is extraordinary hardly matters. It is a claim and it can not proved nor disproved, thus both are logically valid and to say that no evidence is evidence is simply ludicrous and logically fallacious.

What reason? What logic? What FACTS? Name ONE fact that disproves the existence of a deity. Just one.

Thank you especially for your concern about the possibility of reproduction. It means so much to me coming from such an amazing person as yourself.

#22 by , Aug 22, 2007

apologies for the type-o's...eating while typing.

#23 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

Typos are not relevant, especially in this context.

#24 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

Still waiting for your fact that disproves the existence of a deity Earl.

#25 by , Aug 22, 2007

Here is some suggested reading for you:

argument from inconsistent revelations
the problem of evil
the argument from poor design
argument from nonbelief
the omnipotence paradox
the argument of simultaneous omniscience and omnipotence
the argument from free will
the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God
the counter-argument against the Cosmological argument
theological noncognitivism
the atheist-existentialist argument
the "no reason" (or “no desire”) argument

As far as the politeness of our dialogue is concerned, you set the tone for our correspondence. Actually, look at your response to anyone who called you on the illogic of your arguments. Very defensive.

As a professional writer, here’s a suggestion for you: research. Nobody cares about your opinion, unless you have the knowledge to back it up. Do your homework. Know your subject.

Have fun in your senior year! Remember: high school only happens once.

#26 by Earl of Sidgwick, Aug 22, 2007

yes, #26 is mine ... as if you couldn't tell. Maybe you couldn't. I don't know.

#27 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

I assume it's you, Earl. Where is your evidence? I've read all of that and as a historian, I'll bet you anything you want that my research techniques are equal to your own. Also, most of it doesn't have anything to do with the existence of a deity. The existence of a SPECIFIC deity, yes. A deity in general? No.

Further, if you think I set the tone in a poor way, I would like you to show where I called you a name or did anything that might be construed as being a 'poor sport'. I apologize if you think that I did.

People have called me on the 'illogic' of my arguments, if I appear defensive, it's because I've been 'called' on the illogic of most of my arguments despite the fact they are founded on a clear understanding (and education) of logic.

Don't be such a clown. I would be much more willing to listen to what you had to say if you weren't such a -----.

You're a professional writer? Really? What have you written? I'd love to read some of it.

#28 by Earl of Sidgwick, Aug 22, 2007

You've read all of that! Really? You wouldn't know it by your arguments.

And by the way, repeated readings of Tolkein do not a historian make. Middle Earth was not real.

As the "obtuse" David Jones (your characterization, not mine) pointed out, with your argument, you can only be categorized as a theist. It is what it is. I didn't make the word up.

I thought, I'd check out this site and see what the grass roots level of writing was up to. I'm moving on and vow to never read a Brandon Kumm penned piece again. I might even warn others against the fragile Kumm ego.

Best of luck in your budding "career." And if you've learned nothing else from this, learn to take criticism. There's no room for writers with thin skin.

Best.

#29 by Brandon, Aug 22, 2007

And yet you have yet to name one piece that you have written. I do not have a fragile skin, but I refuse to accept criticism from those who have no concept of what I am trying to say.

David did not respond to me, as you have seen, but you continue to respond in a goofy way.

If you do not choose to read my articles that is fine by me. I'm not a theist in any way, but you choose to characterize me as such. That is your issue not mine.

Your 'criticism' is pointless and useless. It offers nothing except to show your own arrogance.

Thank you so much for commenting and have a great day!

#30 by Earl of Sidgwick, Aug 23, 2007

Ah, you've hit upon the beauty of the Web: anonymity.

Yes, I noticed that David Jones did not respond to you. But you are deluding yourself if you think it is because you made any valid points.

Your reaction to any criticism is best categorized as passive aggressive smarminess. The sign of a true amateur. There are two ways to respond to that type of behavior. Although I don't know David Jones at all, judging by his responses, he seems the type to take the high road and ignore people like you. I do the same in my professional life.

Here on the Web, however, I find it much more tantalizing to have a little fun at the expense of thin-skinned people like you. (By the way, the very fact that you are still responding to my posts are evidence of your fragile ego.)

As far as the pointlessness and uselessness of my criticisms, we'll let the rest of the web decide when I repost our conversation.

Who knows, maybe others will give your articles a couple of extra clicks, and the Triond royalty checks will begin rolling in.

#31 by Brandon, Aug 23, 2007

Oh, don't worry Earl, I'll be posting our conversation as well. We'll let the world decide which one of us is loony.

Your criticism (as you call it) is off base because you don't understand the first point. You're arguing about blue for heaven's sake and that isn't the argument at all. Light at 440-490nm is called 'blue' by everyone because that is how we perceive it and we've (the human species) agrees that is blue. Now, we don't all call it that, but that's a different issue. Blue isn't the argument. The argument is being held by two people who have never seen the sky. One says it is blue the other not blue. At this point either person has an equally valid argument. Full stop. I suggest that you contact your local university and chat with a professor of logic if you think that I'm wrong. I'm sure your vaunted research capabilities are up to the task.

As for my response to your specific criticism shall we recap:

"No. No. No. No. Your "sky is blue" argument has absolutely nothing at all to do with the "proving a negative" or "argument from ignorance," ahem, arguments.

If you make the extraordinary claim, you bear the burden of proof. If you claim the sky is not blue, which the rest of the color-seeing, English-speaking world has agreed to call the color, the burden of proof is in your court.

If you claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity with an interest in prolonged hospital stays, SATs, sporting events, and other personal matters, you are making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof rests with you.

If I claim that an omnipresent, invisible, three-humped celestial camel controls the weather and slot machines, the burden of proof lies with me, and my detractors can sleep well knowing that I'm wrong. Knowing, not assuming or hoping.

The extraordinary claim is NOT as equally valid as the refusal to accept the lunacy."

That was your initial post. Here is my response.

"Earl of S

You missed the point. And it has everything to do with it.

The initial statements: the sky is blue, the sky is not blue are equally valid. Now, once evidence is presented one way or the other one claim can be 'proved' false. However this claim: there is a deity, there is a not deity, has no evidence either way. Therefore the initial statement is still valid.

Further, when you went off about:
"If you claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity with an interest in prolonged hospital stays, SATs, sporting events, and other personal matters" you were on about something that I wasn't arguing.

There is ample evidence that a personal, intervening deity does not exist. There are tests that could be done to see if such a deity exists. However, to argue that there is no deity, for which there is neither positive nor negative evidence, would be much harder and equally as valid as those who argue for a deity."

Now, our conversation did go down hill from there, but to say I was 'smarmy' in the beginning is ludicrous.

So, you post away. Have a nice little chuckle at my expense if it makes you feel superior. But, you're still an intellectual coward. Why don't you pony up with something you've written? Fear? How about this evidence that you have that irrefutably proves the non-existence of a deity? Where's that?

Have a great day.

#32 by Earl of Sidgwick, Aug 23, 2007

Here's a lesson for you about the real world of writing: it's not always about the byline. Once you get past the cheap thrill of seeing your name in "print," you'll be on your way to understanding that reality. With ghostwriting non-fiction books, trade publications, speeches, PR, advertising, etc., there's so much money to be made writing professionally.

That's not to say I haven't had my bylines. They're out there, and no, my name is not really Earl of Sidgwick. That moniker is an homage to one of my favorite philosophers, not that you would know anything about that subject. But, once again, I digress.

You keep writing for Triond, and I'll keep making real money. You're more about the ego-stroke anyhow, as evidenced by your thin skin. There's a reason you write for a pyramid scheme, you know; your ramblings are incoherent and you double-back on yourself so many times that you can't even keep track of your own twisted logic and definitions.

I've already shared this with bucketful of educated people, who have all had a hearty chuckle at your expense.

Like Mr. Jones before me, I am bored with you. Don't bother responding (although I'm sure you will ... you can't seem to resist me), as it will not be included in my future postings.

I am now moving on to something more challenging. There must be a coloring book around here somewhere.

#33 by David Jones, Aug 24, 2007

I'm sorry, I really don't have any more time for this.

Keep up the provocative writing... everyone. Regardless of what your opinions are it is nice to see the internet is good for something other than porn and corporate websites... Thought and discourse are not dead and despite the potentially hot topic things remained reasonably civilized;

I've been called worse things than "obtuse" (although I would distinguish between "slow to understand" and "slow to accept", and I irreverently shirk off that moniker as I do "atheist")

Good night and God Bless, (irony intended)

David Jones

#34 by magilum, Aug 30, 2007

You used the wrong word for your unsubstantiated claims, so now you're going to try to fudge the word to fit your inappropriate use. Just give it up.

#35 by Brandon, Aug 30, 2007

mag --

Which word would that be? Spirit? No, I used the word I wanted, but I did not take into account the necessary requirement to define exactly what I meant.

#36 by Paul the Ogg, Oct 3, 2007

Brandon - I really enjoyed reading this essay. There seems little point in trying to shift certain fanatics from their self-appointed moral high ground. I have read on this website that sex outside marriage being wrong is not an opinion - it is a fact! Ye Gods how's that for fundamentalism? I see nothing wrong with communism other than the fact that humans tried it out. I'm not an atheist per se, but I do believe there's room for doubt especially as the laws laid down in the various religious texts were written by men. You're not going to persuade me that God picked up his pen one day and decided on a career in law-writing. Beliefs are based on assumptions not facts.

Inside Socyberty

Socyberty
About Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy

Services
Submit an Article
Advertise with Us

Contact