From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:25:31 GMT

<My comments are here interspersed within the following dialogue>


In <12011@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.080120.28144@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>In <1992Dec7.103757.15944@news.cs.brandeis.edu> iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ivan Derzhanski) writes:
>>>When will the theist morons understand the simple fact that there is
>>>no such thing as an atheist faith, logical and rational or otherwise?

Strong atheism is a faith.  (Although now someone will probably come up
with some alternative definition of faith.  Argument by redefinition. 
Oh well.)

>>To be an atheist you require a positive _belief_ that God *does not* exist.

I am obviously here talking about "strong atheism" (the only definition
of atheism I had come across till the famous FAQ -- I still find
considering "weak atheism" as atheism very weird, as I had always
considered agnosticism and atheism distinctly different, yet using this
new definition, agnosticism is now included in "weak" atheism).

>I require no such thing.  But this subject has been discussed way too
>many times here, so I'm not going to take it up right now.

>>Don't tell me you don't even understand this at this elementary level.

I was talking about strong atheism again.  Ivan, obviously, isn't.

>I don't.  I can't understand how it is possible that after so many
>gigalitres of net.ink have been spilt to elucidate the difference
>between not believing that G exists and believing that G doesn't exist,
>some still don't get it.

I do get the difference.  
I was talking about strong atheism, rather than weak atheism.
With weak atheism, one considers agnosticism as a subset of atheism,
something which, in my experience anyhow, seemed foreign to usual usage
of the term "atheism".

>>Luckily not all atheists are as thick as you.

>What do the thin ones say?  That they have a logical and rational
>positive belief that god does not exist?

Okay, I got a bit hot-headed.  

>>>The death sentences pronounced on innocent people in the old
>>>"communist" world have nothing to do with atheism.  Get it?
>>
>>They do for one type of atheism.

>What type of atheism?  What types of atheism are there?  In how many
>ways can one not believe in gods?

Eastern European style communism comes with STRONG atheism thrown in as 
part of the package.  Religious oppression against Muslims, Christians, 
and Jews in the USSR was a direct result of this state-instituted strong
atheism. 
 
>>>It is a question of behaviour based on certain views.  There are no
>>>views that all atheists share, therefore atheism _qua_ atheism can't
>>>trigger any form of behaviour.  Islam on the other hand can.

In my posting I was talking about strong atheism.  I think this was
clear from what I had written, although at that time I would not have
even considered calling "weak atheism" atheism.  There is, of course, a
view all strong atheists share.

>>There are many views in Islam particular to a specific group of
>>Muslims.  Most non-Muslims do not understand this, like yourself and
>>the original poster.

>On the contrary, I know that (though I might be at a loss giving
>specific examples).  But are you denying that there are views in Islam
>which are compulsory for all Muslims?  If so, then which is the group
>of Muslims who believe that Allah exists?  That he is the only god?
>That Muhammad was his prophet?  That the Qur'an is his word, and if
>that book says `do this', it must be done?

The posting I was responding to was slandering all Muslims because of
the actions of certain terrorist groups -- actions which the majority of
Muslims do not support.  My posting should be considered within the
context of what I was replying to.

>>The comparison holds,

>The hell it does.

It still holds, concerning strong atheism.

>>and if you understood Islam more then you would see this.

>... and if you had the slightest idea of what atheism is, you would
>see the opposite.  This kind of discussion doesn't lead anywhere.

Ivan, is discussing weak atheism too, whereas I was not, and therein
lies the confusion, I think.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   

==================================================================
=   A poor man said to a rich one:				 =
=     `All my money goes on food.'				 = 
=     `Now that's your trouble,' said the rich man. `I only 	 =
=   spend five per cent of _my_ money on food.'			 = 
=                                        			 =
=                -- Idries Shah, _The Magic Monastery_		 =
==================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism