🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:26:39 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:20:01 GMT, don'tgo@there.com (The Watcher)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:50:39 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:43:22 GMT, don'tgo@there.com (The Watcher)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:34:37 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You appear confused.  The term "atheist" may be parsed as "a (without)
>>>>>theos (god)."
>>>>
>>>>It MAY. It may also be parsed as a person without a belief in god(s). That's not
>>>>the same thing as a person WITH a belief in NO god(s).
>>>
>>>The difference is a quibble.
>>
>>Maybe you'd like to let the atheists define what a christian is?
>
>Happens all the time.

Not in THIS society, it doesn't. The christians tend to get a bit upset when the
non-believers try to tell them what they think of their beliefs.

>There is no One definition of what an Xtian is
>-- there are many. 

Indeed. I think that's pretty much what I've been saying about atheism, too.

>>Let's not quibble over the small details, OK? Us atheists could come up with some really
>>good definitions for the people who have decided what they think WE are.
>>BTW, that "quibble" is usually referred to as either hard atheism or soft
>>atheism by people who actually have a clue about the subject. ;)
>
>Another quibble. It's a differentiation without a difference, a form
>of theological Insider Baseball, interesting only to those already
>deeply ensconced in the discussion.

Yeah, those "quibbles" among the religious have been used as the reasons they've
gone around killing each other, and they STILL use them as excuses to kill each
other to this day. Too bad they can't be a bit more like the atheists and just
argue with each other about it. :/