David Paszkiewicz's letter in the Observer

[Guest *Autonomous*]

You have no credibility. Even your "buddy" Paul just called you a liar and threw you under the bus.

A-no he didn't. He clarified his position after a post in which I responded to flat-out lies from your side. I wasn't sure if he was an atheist or not-now I know that humanism is more important to him. I was right, btw-he's actually a strong agnostic. Either way, I don't need an echo chamber to feel good about what I believe. I support Paul and his son for their strong secular virtues, and I would do so even if they were Christians.

B-way to keep proving my point. Care to try the science now?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

No, they both want me to agree with them wholesale.

I don't. I 'm perfectly happy with everyone thinking for themselves. The beliefs that I have are those best suited to me. They probably wouldn't suit you at all.

[Guest Paul]

I don't. I 'm perfectly happy with everyone thinking for themselves. The beliefs that I have are those best suited to me. They probably wouldn't suit you at all.

I know you don't. You thought I was an atheist like yourself, so you may not fit the mold. My beliefs probably are quite similar to yours, but each of us looks at it in our own unique way. That's the kind of creative tension that elevates everyone if it's explored.

Most of my fellow non-theists exhibit an unfortunate inclination to accept minority status. Many of them make it part of their self-image. I keep telling people in various Humanist and secularist organizations that this is crippling, but it seems that a self-image is hard to shake loose. I would like to see the day when we stop fighting old battles and just present ourselves for who we are. If we start doing that, more people will join us.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I know you don't. You thought I was an atheist like yourself, so you may not fit the mold. My beliefs probably are quite similar to yours, but each of us looks at it in our own unique way. That's the kind of creative tension that elevates everyone if it's explored.

Most of my fellow non-theists exhibit an unfortunate inclination to accept minority status. Many of them make it part of their self-image. I keep telling people in various Humanist and secularist organizations that this is crippling, but it seems that a self-image is hard to shake loose. I would like to see the day when we stop fighting old battles and just present ourselves for who we are. If we start doing that, more people will join us.

A "non-theist"? Why the semantics, why not just say atheist, which is what you are. That's like saying "non-female" or "non-African American".

Of course your word games are typical of the loony left, it's your nature to spin everything.

[Guest Guest]

A "non-theist"? Why the semantics, why not just say atheist, which is what you are. That's like saying "non-female" or "non-African American".

Of course your word games are typical of the loony left, it's your nature to spin everything.

You're wrong, as always, and as always you're the one spinning toward the conclusion you've already come to even before you thought about it - which you never do (think about it). Instead of asking what the distinction means, you just decide, in your usual arrogant and self-satisfied way, that it doesn't mean anything.

The difference is this:

To many people, an atheist is someone who says definitively there is no God.

A non-theist is just someone who isn't a theist.

The difference is between believing there is no God and not believing there is a God. It accounts for the fact that there are gray areas in our knowledge, things we know something about but not enough to make a definitive statement.

Of course, understanding that would require you to have a little humility and a little intelligence and a little thoughtfulness. The difference is real, even though you don't have the brains to understand it or the humility or honesty to try.

[Guest Guest]

A "non-theist"? Why the semantics, why not just say atheist, which is what you are. That's like saying "non-female" or "non-African American".

Of course your word games are typical of the loony left, it's your nature to spin everything.

It's not the same. Female and African-American are physical realities. Theism, atheism and non-theism are belief systems, and as such are products of human values and judgments.

Typical of the stupid and ignorant right to get it completely wrong.

[Guest Guest]

A "non-theist"? Why the semantics, why not just say atheist, which is what you are. That's like saying "non-female" or "non-African American".

Of course your word games are typical of the loony left, it's your nature to spin everything.

Unfortunately for 2dim, some things are more complicated than the "Dick and Jane" books he read - ah - had read to him in kindergarten.

[Guest Paul]

A "non-theist"? Why the semantics, why not just say atheist, which is what you are. That's like saying "non-female" or "non-African American".

Of course your word games are typical of the loony left, it's your nature to spin everything.

It’s not semantics. It’s a real distinction, the essence of which is that non-theism just means that one does not affirmatively believe in a god. Atheist can mean that, too, but to many people it means asserting as a matter of fact that there is no god.

In addition, non-theism is a less dogmatic stance than at least some forms of atheism. So I use the term non-theist because it’s a more accurate description of what I believe and where I stand on these matters.

If you want to know more about what I believe, ask me. When you presume to tell other people what they believe, you only display your own ignorance and intolerance. Though Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd have set a very bad example for you, it’s still morally wrong.

Now I’m very sorry that this doesn’t allow you to pigeonhole me in the way you wish to do. Not that it stops you from refusing to see it any other way, and not that any of this will make the slightest difference to you, if past behavior is any guide.

I don’t enjoy being mean to you, but you’re one of the least perceptive people on this forum and frankly, most of the time you act like a jerk. What will it take to get you to recognize that other people see things that you don’t see?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

A "non-theist"? Why the semantics, why not just say atheist, which is what you are. That's like saying "non-female" or "non-African American".

Paul does not actively disbelieve in a God. He is technically a hard agnostic/weak atheist. Seeing no reason to believe, I have chosen to believe that there is no God. I am an atheist. Saying that there is no God is in fact an assertion-one that I make and he does not care to. See the difference?

Also-really bad example. "Non-female" would technically include hermaphrodites, TGs, and males. "Non-African American" would not mean white-it would just mean what it says.

Of course your word games are typical of the loony left, it's your nature to spin everything.

No word games, just nuance. Apparently most of us understood-why do you suppose you couldn't?

[Guest 2smart4u]

It’s not semantics. It’s a real distinction, the essence of which is that non-theism just means that one does not affirmatively believe in a god. Atheist can mean that, too, but to many people it means asserting as a matter of fact that there is no god.

In addition, non-theism is a less dogmatic stance than at least some forms of atheism. So I use the term non-theist because it’s a more accurate description of what I believe and where I stand on these matters.

If you want to know more about what I believe, ask me. When you presume to tell other people what they believe, you only display your own ignorance and intolerance. Though Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd have set a very bad example for you, it’s still morally wrong.

Now I’m very sorry that this doesn’t allow you to pigeonhole me in the way you wish to do. Not that it stops you from refusing to see it any other way, and not that any of this will make the slightest difference to you, if past behavior is any guide.

I don’t enjoy being mean to you, but you’re one of the least perceptive people on this forum and frankly, most of the time you act like a jerk. What will it take to get you to recognize that other people see things that you don’t see?

Sounds like a lot of hair-splitting; "does not affirmatively believe"? So, you're an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar just in case there is a God.

BTW, Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd are morally wrong? Statements like that put you out on the fringe with the far left Kool-Aiders.

[Guest Guest]

Sounds like a lot of hair-splitting; "does not affirmatively believe"? So, you're an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar just in case there is a God.

BTW, Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd are morally wrong? Statements like that put you out on the fringe with the far left Kool-Aiders.

Of course, TO YOU it sounds like hair-splitting, just like a goldfish only sees the worm and not the hook. Two reasons for that.

1. You're not listening because you've already made up your mind, such as it is.

2. You think everything is black and white.

And of course, you do it again. Instead of asking what it means, you decide what the other person's motive is. Maybe he sees it that way because that's how he sees it. Maybe it has nothing to do with leaving a door ajar. Why don't you ask him?

Limbaugh and Coulter are asses. They have no problem lying about people and events and everything else. They do it all the time. They attack everyone who doesn't agree with them. They have made millions of dollars telling gullible people like you that everyone else is stupid, loony, unpatriotic, etc. They are despicable people and yes, their tactics are morally wrong.

[Guest Guest]

Sounds like a lot of hair-splitting; "does not affirmatively believe"? So, you're an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar just in case there is a God.

BTW, Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd are morally wrong? Statements like that put you out on the fringe with the far left Kool-Aiders.

It makes perfect sense if you can actually stand the strenuous activity of thinking. Here’s a parallel example.

Let’s say that a die-hard Seattle Mariners fan insists that they will win the World Series in 2040. He enthusiastically asks you whether you’re a believer. If you just want to get along, you’ll give him a high-five and say “yeah”! But if you’re honest, you’ll say that you don’t know whether they will win that year, though it could happen. If he gets upset and says “whaddya mean?!” you could just let it go, or you could explain that it’s too early to know since most of the players aren’t born yet and the odds are against it since there will be many other teams in the league, if they’re still playing MLB in 2040 and if Seattle still has a team. So you don’t affirmatively believe that the Seattle Mariners of 2040 will win the World Series that year, but you’re not saying they won’t.

The main difference is that we know there really is a Seattle Mariners baseball team, though we don’t know if it will still exist in 2040. Who knows, maybe the team will move to Kearny and call itself the Knuckle-Draggers. Maybe they'll even name you manager, which would certainly be appropriate. That could all happen. But I wouldn’t bet on that either.

But it could.

Except for that, it’s essentially the same thing.

Now, is it that you really don’t understand, or you just don’t want to understand?

Or maybe just that you don’t want to think that hard?

Or maybe that you’ve already made up your mind to disagree with anyone who isn’t shouting holy-holy?

Those are pretty much the only choices.

Because this is a very simple concept.

If you have a brain.

And use it.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Sounds like a lot of hair-splitting; "does not affirmatively believe"? So, you're an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar just in case there is a God.

BTW, Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd are morally wrong? Statements like that put you out on the fringe with the far left Kool-Aiders.

The phrase "it's still morally wrong" refers back to "you presume to tell other people what they believe." Though we already know reading comprehension is an issue for you.

BTW-most Americans disagree with Rush:

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/200...on-republicans/

[Guest Guest]

Sounds like a lot of hair-splitting; "does not affirmatively believe"? So, you're an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar just in case there is a God.

BTW, Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd are morally wrong? Statements like that put you out on the fringe with the far left Kool-Aiders.

In other words it was too complicated for your little pea brain to understand.

I'll make it very simple.

When you affirmatively believe something, you're saying it's true.

When you disbelieve something, you're saying it's not true.

Everything else is somewhere in between, such as:

When you say that you don't affirmatively believe something, you're saying that you can't say that it's true.

--- That could mean that you think it's most likely not true.

--- Or it could mean that you don't have enough information to have an opinion one way or the other.

--- --- This may be hard for you to grasp, but some people can actually admit when they don't know something.

--- --- In fact, some people (like most of our greatest scientists) are very disciplined about not drawing conclusions until they have enough information. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't be great scientists.

--- Or it could mean a lot of other things. You would have to listen to the rest of what the person has to say.

But since that's already too much for you to grasp, I'll stop there.

[Guest Paul]

Sounds like a lot of hair-splitting; "does not affirmatively believe"? So, you're an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar just in case there is a God.

BTW, Limbaugh, Coulter and that crowd are morally wrong? Statements like that put you out on the fringe with the far left Kool-Aiders.

This has been very well covered in four other posts already but . . .

You would like a simple answer, and it is a direct question, so . . .

. . . I would like to give you a simple answer but I can’t because . . .

. . . in point of fact, no one knows whether there is a god, or gods or goddesses or such.

Now I'm very sorry that's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth.

Here’s what we do know.

People have been inventing stories and making up gods as far back as history can trace such things. Everyone thinks that at least some of the stories are just stories. It stands to reason that they might all be just stories.

In all of history, not one god has ever been verified to exist. We have no good evidence that any god or god-like being(s) exist or have ever existed.

There is no good reason to think that reality began with consciousness. All the evidence says that consciousness is a product of the organic brain, so that consciousness arises out of matter. We don't know how, but that's what the evidence tells us.

Some things in particular belief systems are abhorrent, ridiculous, absurd, etc. Other things are beautiful but there’s no evidence for them. But that’s a more specific point, which goes to whether a specifically described God exists.

So for me this isn’t mainly about the answer, because we don’t know the answer.

What matters most is how we think about the question. Because that’s what we’re capable of doing something about: how we think about questions. If we think soundly and according to good methods, then we have the best chance of finding good answers. If we don’t, we are inviting chaos and confusion.

It's obvious that most or all of these stories about gods are just stories. The bigger fantasy is the false idea that we can re-invent the grand cosmic reality with a wish. It's foolish, arrogant and destructive, and so I decline to do it, no matter how many people don't like it. And I choose to speak out about it no matter how many people don't like it.

Here are the problems I have with the way you seem to think about the question, or at the very least with the way you express your thoughts about the question. Deny it all you like, you’ve made it abundantly obvious:

1. You’ve already made up your mind. You demonstrate no openness, except that you keep coming back to non-discuss it.

2. You refuse to reconsider your conclusions. When a point is made that doesn’t fit your conclusions, you either distort it or ignore it.

3. You don’t respect alternative viewpoints. You seem to think everything is as simple as your mind has made it out to be.

4. You accuse from ignorance instead of asking so that you might know more. In my last post I invited you to ask me what I believe instead of presuming to tell me, but instead you just did it again, which is why I say you act like a jerk.

5. You don’t seem to be able to think beyond the single question you’ve asked yourself. I promise you, there are other questions, even though you refuse to think about them.

To be honest, I don’t know what to make of you. Sometimes I think you’re a complete jerk. Sometimes I think you’re like a lot of other people I know who think very narrowly and very rigidly and can’t get outside that way of thinking. Sometimes I think you’re quite an intelligent fellow who has locked himself into a crippling narrow-mindedness. Most of the time I think that there is more than one person posting as 2smart4u. These are not mutually exclusive views.

And yet you keep coming, whoever you are and however many there are of you. I don’t know what value you see in these non-discussions. I have to call them that because you’re not engaging the points that are being made to you. All I can do is respond to the fact that you keep posting, and keep telling you what I see.

In the end, what drives me is my Faith in humanity. There’s no guarantee that this Faith will be rewarded, and you’ve given me ample reason to doubt it. Most people think I must be out of my mind to keep engaging you. But my Faith requires it because I believe that you could have an intelligent dialogue if you wanted to. So I keep posting to you.

Justify my Faith in you. For once, don’t attack, don’t smart off, don’t throw off your responsibility for what you write. Respond thoughtfully and be willing to change your mind.

You could be wrong, you know.

[Guest Paul]

Paul does not actively disbelieve in a God. He is technically a hard agnostic/weak atheist. Seeing no reason to believe, I have chosen to believe that there is no God. I am an atheist. Saying that there is no God is in fact an assertion-one that I make and he does not care to. See the difference?

Also-really bad example. "Non-female" would technically include hermaphrodites, TGs, and males. "Non-African American" would not mean white-it would just mean what it says.

No word games, just nuance. Apparently most of us understood-why do you suppose you couldn't?

I've come to think that the labels (agnostic, atheist, etc.) do more to cloud the matter than clarify it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

In other words it was too complicated for your little pea brain to understand.

I'll make it very simple.

When you affirmatively believe something, you're saying it's true.

When you disbelieve something, you're saying it's not true.

Everything else is somewhere in between, such as:

When you say that you don't affirmatively believe something, you're saying that you can't say that it's true.

--- That could mean that you think it's most likely not true.

--- Or it could mean that you don't have enough information to have an opinion one way or the other.

--- --- This may be hard for you to grasp, but some people can actually admit when they don't know something.

--- --- In fact, some people (like most of our greatest scientists) are very disciplined about not drawing conclusions until they have enough information. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't be great scientists.

--- Or it could mean a lot of other things. You would have to listen to the rest of what the person has to say.

But since that's already too much for you to grasp, I'll stop there.

I like my explanation better; he's an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar in case there is a God.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

I've come to think that the labels (agnostic, atheist, etc.) do more to cloud the matter than clarify it.

Probably-but mostly because English is not a very precise language.

[Guest Guest]

I like my explanation better; he's an atheist who wants to leave the door ajar in case there is a God.

Of course you like your explanation better, but the fact is:

You're an idiot.

[Guest Patriot]

Probably-but mostly because English is not a very precise language.

Good Grief. The motor pool guy is now offering "expert" opinions on the level of precision of the English language. Which would raise some questions, your opinion must be based on comparisons with the preciseness of other languages, which must have very difficult and time consuming for you.

What could possibly be the motivation for conducting such a long and tedious study, thesis for an advanced degree or just an interest in the subject?

Or most likely, you're just talking nonsense like you usually do and don't have a clue.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Good Grief. The motor pool guy is now offering "expert" opinions on the level of precision of the English language.

There you are insulting thousands of our soldiers again. I don't know why you suppose motor pool duty would be something to be ashamed of. I've seen these guys stuck in the middle of the road for an hour trying to get a vehicle moving again while never knowing when they might come under fire. That's more courage than a false Patriot who can't even name his own unit has ever shown us. Although I wasn't one of them, every soldier in the Army has a role to play and they can all be proud of their service. You should be ashamed, but I suppose that would require a certain level of decency which your pathetic ass can't muster.

Which would raise some questions, your opinion must be based on comparisons with the preciseness of other languages, which must have very difficult and time consuming for you.

What could possibly be the motivation for conducting such a long and tedious study, thesis for an advanced degree or just an interest in the subject?

English/Classical Studies degree, as I've mentioned twice before.. There is a reason that I can clearly see the identical syntax of you and your alter egos.

Or most likely, you're just talking nonsense like you usually do and don't have a clue.

So you're going to rebut the actual science we posted now? Thought not.

[Guest Paul]

Good Grief. The motor pool guy is now offering "expert" opinions on the level of precision of the English language. Which would raise some questions, your opinion must be based on comparisons with the preciseness of other languages, which must have very difficult and time consuming for you.

What could possibly be the motivation for conducting such a long and tedious study, thesis for an advanced degree or just an interest in the subject?

Or most likely, you're just talking nonsense like you usually do and don't have a clue.

On the contrary, no comparison to another language is implied by his post; he was just pointing out that our language is imprecise, which it is. A word like atheist can refer to many things, depending on who is using it and in what context. It can refer to one's belief regarding a god generally or to "God" in particular (depending on what that means in a particular context) or to the very concept of God, or it can refer to non-affiliation with any theistic-religious organization, or it can refer to a set of attitudes or to a way to approach questions involving religion and theism.

I'm very sorry that this level of sophistication exceeds your present ability to grasp it, but you really do make yourself look quite silly mocking others who are operating at a higher level of erudition and/or intellect than you are. That comparison is objectively true, and the lame and rather obvious attempt to switch from "2smart4u" to "Patriot" doesn't help your cause.

Really, every argument you've made has been thoroughly demolished, most of them from several different angles. Don't you think it's time you sat back and reconsidered your views? Seriously and sincerely, what would it take to get you to do that?

Do you really feel good about yourself, just coming here to demean others? What's the point?

[Guest Guest]

On the contrary, no comparison to another language is implied by his post; he was just pointing out that our language is imprecise, which it is. A word like atheist can refer to many things, depending on who is using it and in what context. It can refer to one's belief regarding a god generally or to "God" in particular (depending on what that means in a particular context) or to the very concept of God, or it can refer to non-affiliation with any theistic-religious organization, or it can refer to a set of attitudes or to a way to approach questions involving religion and theism.

I'm very sorry that this level of sophistication exceeds your present ability to grasp it, but you really do make yourself look quite silly mocking others who are operating at a higher level of erudition and/or intellect than you are. That comparison is objectively true, and the lame and rather obvious attempt to switch from "2smart4u" to "Patriot" doesn't help your cause.

Really, every argument you've made has been thoroughly demolished, most of them from several different angles. Don't you think it's time you sat back and reconsidered your views? Seriously and sincerely, what would it take to get you to do that?

Do you really feel good about yourself, just coming here to demean others? What's the point?

Are you and Autonomous father and son? And BTW, do you think Kris would agree with you?

[Guest Guest]

Are you and Autonomous father and son? And BTW, do you think Kris would agree with you?

If you have nothing to say, it's best to remain silent. That way people might think you're just holding back. You've laid all your cards on the table, and that's really sad.

[Guest Keith]

Are you and Autonomous father and son? And BTW, do you think Kris would agree with you?

I would agree with him.