From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:00:05 GMT

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note followups set to alt.atheism only. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

In article <11JAN199322190385@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.201030.17107@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, 
>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes...

>>> I'm wondering if there are really any true "atheist."

>> I'm a true atheist, so the answer would appear to be `yes'. Does this help?

> Yes, as far as you've gone. I'd also like to know how you differ from
> a skeptic?

I don't. I am both an atheist (in the `strong' sense, i.e. I am of the
active opinion that gods, as I understand the term, do not have any
objective existence), and a skeptic. I see skepticism as a label for
the process of applying observation and reason to evaluate claims in
the objective domain, and [my] atheism as the product of skepticism
in the case of a particular class of such claims.


> Extrapolating, from the dictionary, a true atheist strongly
> denies there is a GOD or gods.

To avoid definition wars, let's not haggle over whether a general atheist
necessarily holds the `strong' position. Suffice it to say that I do, and
that I call myself an atheist although others without such a strong position
call themselves atheists too. I'm prepared to defend the `strong' position
(as defined in the parenthesised part of my first comment above) if you
like. You haven't actually asked me to do this yet, and I'm not entirely
clear what you wish to know about atheism, atheists, or this atheist.
Fire at will.


> Is this the essential point, defined in relation to God(s)??? More to
> the point, if GOD is not, and not worth considering, is there some other
> conception apart from GOD that helps describe who you are as an atheist.
> (Besides of course, your assertion.) 

Atheism does not describe the totality of who one is or how one sees
oneself.  It merely describes a lack of belief that gods exist (weak)
or a belief that gods do not exist (strong). An individual might
reasonably expect to be described by a wider picture than his opinion
on a single issue, I would think. There are other questions around, and
there is ample evidence that atheists don't all share the same set of
views about those.


> By the by. The FAQ -- I've read. Atheism, isn't what I want to know.
> Atheist are.  < Which is not to say I shouldn't try not to be preachy,
> IAW rule whatever, subtitle 10, section A, clause 8 of latin subheading
> XXI... =->

Personally, I rather approve of preaching on a.a if it attempts to make a
logical and reasoned case which is amenable to discussion, or even just if
followups are answered honestly. I was rather sad at the howling that greeted
Malcolm Lee recently, who I thought was doing his best to respond in the only
way he knows how, which sure enough counts as preaching. Lest I be called for
hypocrisy, I confess that I used to flame preachers or invite them to leave
rather than try to reason with them. I have since changed my mind.

While I'm sure it would cause irritation in large volumes, the *utterly*
vacuous, foaming and unhinged stuff (a big hello to our friends Edwin Bologna
and Thiagaraj John down in Durban SA) can be Pisser Of The Week.

>    |
> -- J --
>    |
>    |  Stephen  

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive,alt.censorship