HAHA, GOTCHA! Let's investigate atheists instead of atheism.

[yrreg]

You see, man is the measure of everything that man concerns himself with.

God is one thing man concerns himself with.

As far as my knowledge of man's relationship with God goes, man first got to know God's existence, then some men started to deny God's existence.

It's almost impossible to talk with God's deniers, viz., atheists, about what they are denying, because they are bent on tergiversation (look up that word, get its etymology for a complete understanding of what is tergiversation).

So I have decided to look for people who investigate outspoken atheists to find out how they are getting on in this big business of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Eudaimonia is what everyone who has an activated brain is working for.

I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists and their eudaimonia.


This thread will be further focused more specifically on particular aspects of eudaimonia in outspoken atheists.



Yrreg

[Ichneumonwasp]

What will be your control group?

[Darth Rotor]

Eudaimonia is what everyone who has an activated brain is working for.
I do not concur. From this thread Does your penis have a mind of its own (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129428&page=4) we note independent thought / initiative has been recorded as a characteristic of a penis. Your assertion is thus tested against what a penis wants, with its activated brain, which is not eudaimonia but rather the more specific end of being housed in a suitable channel. (The idiomatic nuances involved in how this creates human thriving, happiness, or Mr Happy being happier I leave to the more cunning linguists on this board, eudaimonia being Greek in origin.)
I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists and their eudaimonia.
The probing, forescin absent or present, goes more deeply than mere eudaimonia.

Suggest you rethink this position: your missionary zeal may have confused you.

DR

[Dysphemist]

Wow. He definitely got me.

I realise now that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
are both the same thing?
So, Vishnu is just as much God as the human Jesus was?

[normdoering]

What will be your control group?

Let's cherry pick a control group for him, since you know he'll cherry pick his own targets. How about Ray Comfort for a start. He is clear evidence that Christianity causes brain damage. Check out this post:

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-do-females-exist.html

All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, elephants, humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present (with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female.

Why did hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years) evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each species?

I blogged about him and Kirk Cameron here:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html

[Foster Zygote]

I see Gerry's thesaurus is still working.

[Safe-Keeper]

As far as my knowledge of man's relationship with God goes, man first got to know God's existence, then some men started to deny God's existence.Your knowledge is incredibly limited, then. Ask an actual Bible scholar about the history of religion some day.

[Dunstan]

You see, man is the measure of everything that man concerns himself with.

HA!HA! GOTCHA! This sentence is incoherent.

As far as my knowledge of man's relationship with God goes, man first got to know God's existence, then some men started to deny God's existence.

HA!HA! GOTCHA! You are assuming the existence of God, having run away from other threads when asked for evidence.

It's almost impossible to talk with God's deniers, viz., atheists, about what they are denying, because they are bent on tergiversation (look up that word, get its etymology for a complete understanding of what is tergiversation).

HA!HA! GOTCHA! It's your obligation to provide a definition of God, as was pointed out to you countless times.

I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists and their eudaimonia.


This thread will be further focused more specifically on particular aspects of eudaimonia in outspoken atheists.


HA!HA! GOTCHA! You're announcing your intention to commit a logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominen.

[KingMerv00]

I see Gerry's thesaurus is still working.

Merriam-Webster.com says tergiversation is:


1 : evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement : equivocation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocation)

2 : desertion of a cause, position, party, or faith

I'm sure he means definition #2, but using the word "tergiversation" is an act of tergiversation as per definition #1.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Eudaimonia is what everyone who has an activated brain is working for.
Unless you are using some sense of the word eudaimonia which translates to weekend in vernacular English, you are wrong.

[RoboTimbo]

Merriam-Webster.com says tergiversation is:
1 : evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement : equivocation

2 : desertion of a cause, position, party, or faith


I'm sure he means definition #2, but using the word "tergiversation" is an act of tergiversation as per definition #1.


So, pretty much a definition of yrreg as he flees from threads he starts but can't finish?

[sthomson]

At first, my favorite part of this post was the title. After reading the whole thing, my favorite part is how the OP used big words to state that atheists are both evasive and deserters. If he or she didn't intend the first meaning, then s/he would have just said "deserters", rather than find a word that means both things. How clever!

Eudaimonia is what everyone who has an activated brain is working for.

Some of us are just workin for the weekend.

Edited to add: Damn, Carabas beat me to the joke :(

[Dunstan]

Unless you are using some sense of the word eudaimonia which translates to weekend in vernacular English, you are wrong.

Ah, the great prophet Loverboy....

[KingMerv00]

So, pretty much a definition of yrreg as he flees from threads he starts but can't finish?

I'm saying that using saffron does not automatically make you look like a good cook.

[Hokulele]

I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists and their eudaimonia.


You may be better off looking through some of the threads on aliens in General Skepticism.




Oh wait, forensic probes. Never mind.

[CurtC]

I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists...

So now you think we atheists are criminals? Or "almost" criminals? Really?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

You see, man is the measure of everything that man concerns himself with.

God is one thing man concerns himself with.

As far as my knowledge of man's relationship with God goes, man first got to know God's existence, then some men started to deny God's existence.

It's almost impossible to talk with God's deniers, viz., atheists, about what they are denying, because they are bent on tergiversation (look up that word, get its etymology for a complete understanding of what is tergiversation).

So I have decided to look for people who investigate outspoken atheists to find out how they are getting on in this big business of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Eudaimonia is what everyone who has an activated brain is working for.

I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists and their eudaimonia.


This thread will be further focused more specifically on particular aspects of eudaimonia in outspoken atheists.



Yrreg

Unsurprising but you won't find anything. I believe certain fundamentalists have been trying to write off atheism as a form of mental disease or autism for years.

[yrreg]

I love etymology.

If you are wondering what I mean by the words I use, look up the etymology and you will get the basic meaning of what I mean by the words I use.

Forensic? Look up the etymology.

Tergiversation? look up the etymology.

Eudaimonia? Look up the etymology.


You see, when you look up etymologies of words, you will realize that many questions today have been discussed thousands of years back.

Only now people some that is have cultivated the tack of burying their heads in sand like the proverbial ostrich, in order to not see what reason and intelligence which they possess for being humans lead them to.

They wilfully limit the universe of discourse so as to pursue their psychology of self-conveniences outside all witnesses, starting with the witness of their reason and intelligence.

Which however any baby can discern even without taking up formal training in psychology.



Okay, if you know of any investigators of atheists, outspoken ones, please introduce them to me, specially those who undertake investigation ala fervor of bounty hunters.


And as before I notice that atheists here are tergiversating.

Start the investigation, look up an outspoken atheist for example of recent US history and start investigating his or her eudaimonia.




Yrreg

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I love etymology.

If you are wondering what I mean by the words I use, look up the etymology and you will get the basic meaning of what I mean by the words I use.

Forensic? Look up the etymology.

Tergiversation? look up the etymology.

Eudaimonia? Look up the etymology.

You seem to be far more interested in pointing out your use of big words than actually doing anything else at all.

Okay, if you know of any investigators of atheists, outspoken ones, please introduce them to me, specially those who undertake investigation ala fervor of bounty hunters.

And as before I notice that atheists here are tergiversating.

Start the investigation, look up an outspoken atheist for example of recent US history and start investigating his or her eudaimonia.

Why exactly are you asking us to do your research for you?

[Ron_Tomkins]

You seem to be far more interested in point out your use of big words than actually do anything else at all.



Why exactly are you asking us to do your research for you?

:tr:

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

:tr:

Bah...you used the quote with the spelling errors.

I've come to the conclusion that he's trolling and left this thread alone.

[Jeff Corey]

He's Der Tergiversator! "Ah'll be back!" http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/terminator-4.jpg

[Hokulele]

He's Der Tergiversator! "Ah'll be back!"


Don't turn around, (Ha ha!)
Der Tergiversator's in town, (Ha ha!)

[Jeff Corey]

See ya later, Tergivesator,
In a while, Crock-a-dile.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

HAHA, GOTCHA! Let's investigate atheists instead of atheism.

You mean playing the man instead of the ball?
Elegant. And strikingly original.


This thread will be further focused more specifically on particular aspects of eudaimonia in outspoken atheists.

Not that you meant anything by it, bless you, but you've already done a bit for my eudaimonia.

[devnull]

Ah, the great prophet Loverboy....

and, so I hear, Mr Bungle did a concert once where this was all they played...... over and over again :)

[Ron_Tomkins]

Bah...you used the quote with the spelling errors.

I've come to the conclusion that he's trolling and left this thread alone.

No. Reverberison is the hit and run poster.

This one hits (very poorly) but doesn't run.
He's another attention seeker.

[GeeMack]

As far as my knowledge of man's relationship with God goes, man first got to know God's existence, then some men started to deny God's existence.


Nope. Wrong. First man had a whole lot of more important things to do than believing in unevidenced, invisible magical beings. Man existed for quite some time before he had enough spare time to invent gods some 12,000 years ago.

And what you incorrectly perceive as atheists' denial of the existence of gods is actually their acceptance of the non-existence of gods. (Read that over a few times, Mr. Etymology, if you don't get it on the first run.) And that acceptance is based on a wholesale lack of any evidence supporting the existence.

This one hits (very poorly) but doesn't run.
He's another attention seeker.


Clearly.

[Silentknight]

I love etymology.

If you are wondering what I mean by the words I use, look up the etymology and you will get the basic meaning of what I mean by the words I use.

Forensic? Look up the etymology.

Tergiversation? look up the etymology.

Eudaimonia? Look up the etymology. (snip) blah, blah, blah...
This reminds me of something.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness

You know, most people here are quite intelligent and are already familiar with the proper use of complex vocabulary. When you use thesaurus terms, it sounds forced, as if you'd just hit upon something you think is novel and impressive.

Notice how impressed I am. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/219034935f2fa2b7f1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14419)

Also, "HAHA, GOTCHA"? Not to imply anything, but why does that catchphrase remind me of something a child abductor might say? Ugh! Creepy...

P.S. I think he's saying that atheists ascribe to Eudaimonism (and I do know what that means) in his OP.

[bokonon]

See ya later, Tergivesator,
In a while, Crock-a-dile.
In a bit...

[Foster Zygote]

I love etymology.

If you are wondering what I mean by the words I use, look up the etymology and you will get the basic meaning of what I mean by the words I use.

Forensic? Look up the etymology.

Tergiversation? look up the etymology.

Eudaimonia? Look up the etymology.


You see, when you look up etymologies of words, you will realize that many questions today have been discussed thousands of years back.

Only now people some that is have cultivated the tack of burying their heads in sand like the proverbial ostrich, in order to not see what reason and intelligence which they possess for being humans lead them to.

They wilfully limit the universe of discourse so as to pursue their psychology of self-conveniences outside all witnesses, starting with the witness of their reason and intelligence.

Which however any baby can discern even without taking up formal training in psychology.



Okay, if you know of any investigators of atheists, outspoken ones, please introduce them to me, specially those who undertake investigation ala fervor of bounty hunters.


And as before I notice that atheists here are tergiversating.

Start the investigation, look up an outspoken atheist for example of recent US history and start investigating his or her eudaimonia.




Yrreg

So, what you're saying is that vocabulary is easier to fake than grammar?

[Sunstealer]

From another thread

Thanks, RandFan, for your time and effort to contribute to this thread unlike rote tergiversators here.





Don't go too far and wide.

We must always use very simple ideas and words in the most plain language.

What about describing God thus:

God is the maker of the moon.


Before you dash off to tergiversate instead of continuing on the same vein of sobriety as with your message above, please keep in mind the distinction between words spoken in sensu aienti and words spoken in sensu neganti.


By the way, always keep in mind that man is the measure of everything that man concerns himself with, and he can only be concerned in and by and on and with and through his only way, the human way.

Do some thinking about how man can come to any information at all about anything.


To the rest, if you want to engage productively, instead of tergiversating, please do as RandFan is doing.




YrregI love it. It seems that someone has found a new word and is throwing it around like confetti. Shame he doesn't practice what he preaches - see underlined bold.

[sthomson]

Is yrreg a Scientologist, or does s/he study Dianetics? Phrases like "We must always use very simple ideas and words in the most plain language" and his/her insistence on archaic words, as well as an almost fanatical devotion to the dictionary reminds me quite a bit of some of L. Ron's techniques.

[Marquis de Carabas]

yrreg, you have long since exhaled your vapor.

I have no doubt you'll get that, seeing what a great big etymology buff you are.

[KingMerv00]

yrreg, people are not responding to you directly because they think you are a troll.

Also "HAHA, GOTCHA!" makes you sound like Equus asinus.

[badnewsBH]

I guess I'm a little unclear on all this. Since atheism is the default state of human beings when they're born (to the best of my reckoning, anyway), doesn't it make more sense to study the effects of religion on the efforts of humanity to reach the aforementioned "eudaimonia"? From my limited understanding, I'd say the results on that one are mixed, to say the least. However, I could also say that about atheism, I imagine, and not be too terribly wrong.

In any case, Gerry, I'd say you have a long way to go to make much of a case about anything. Judging from the frequency and quality of replies to your posts thus far, I'd say you have a long way to go in making any case about anything. Of course, if you're simply a troll, I suppose you've succeeded.

Bravo?

[Foster Zygote]

From another thread

I love it. It seems that someone has found a new word and is throwing it around like confetti. Shame he doesn't practice what he preaches - see underlined bold.

It reminds me of the Kids in the Hall skit in which Bruce plays the warehouse worker who uses "ascertain" in almost every sentence he speaks.

Edited because I found a transcript.

Cast:
Dave - boss
Bruce - Williams
[Set in office. Bruce knocks on the door.]
Dave: Come in.

Bruce: I came as soon as I ascertained you needed to see me, sir.

Dave: Sit down, Williams.

Bruce: [sits] What is it, sir?

Dave: There have been some complaints about your use of language on the docks.

Bruce: If this is about yesterday, sir, yes I did use a few blue words, a few cuss words, but as soon as I ascertained that the mix up had been corrected --

Dave: Noo, Williams, it's not your swearing that I'm getting complaints about; it's the fact that use the word "ascertain" too much.

Bruce: Really?

Dave: Yes, apparently you use it an average of two to three- hundred times, daily.

Bruce: Well, I do, but so...other...few words...fit.

Dave: Well, it's driving the men crazy.

Bruce: Who's complaining, sir? Is it Sanchez?

Dave: Noo, it's not Sanchez. It's--it's the older men, the ones nearing retirement.

Bruce: Sir, I ascertain that these men are just jealous of my command of the...English...uh language.

Dave: Well, perhaps. But, I suggest just to keep things running smoothly down at the docks that you humor me by limiting yourself to these four work-related phrases: [reads them off a paper] Good morning fellas; Hand me that thing; Boy, this work's hard; Guys, break's over.

Bruce: Sir, I ascertain--

Dave: Ah.

Bruce: -- that it's their problem. They're just jealous of me. It's my right to ascertain things. You should talk to them about their being upset about my...ascertaination.

Dave: Look, I was young once; and, whatever you do in the privacy of your home, with your good lady wife, well that's your business. But, when it starts to slow work down on the docks, then it becomes my business.

Bruce: I ascertain--

Dave: If you don't back off that word, you'll be looking for a new job -- comprendez-vous?

Bruce: I...asc--

Dave: Unh-uh.

Bruce: ah--

Dave: Mmm-mm.

Bruce: ah--

Dave: Nn-nn.

Bruce: Asc--

Dave: N-nuh-no.

Bruce: Asc -- asc--

Dave: Nooo-no-no-no.

Bruce: I asc--

Dave: Mm-mm-mm-mm.

Bruce: Cer--

Dave: No.

Bruce: tuh--

Dave: Uh-uh. Good morning fellas; hand me that thing; boy, this work's hard; guys, break's over.

Bruce: I asc--

[Dave shoves the paper in his face. Bruce grabs it with disgust.]

Bruce: [pouting] Boy, this work's hard.

Dave: There ya go! Good boy! Now, get the hell out of my office.

[Bruce gets up to go.]

Dave: Glad we had the chance to delineate our little problem.

[Twinkley music sounds out the word "delineate" dances around the screen.]

Bruce: [to himself, trying the word out] Duh-lynn-e-ate. Duh-lynn-e-ate. Sir, I promise I'll never use that...other word ever again. [to himself] Duh-lynn-e-ate.

[Dave eyes him skeptically, as Bruce continues trying the word.]

[fromdownunder]

yrreg, every forum needs a chew toy. Thanks for volunteering your services for this one.

Norm

[arthwollipot]

So yrreg thinks that atheists should be investigated. Investigated for what, exactly?

[Boran]

bah, this is disgusting. Do you really imply that all atheists have something dirty to hide ? Trying to do some McCarthyism arent we ?

[PixyMisa]

This thread will be further focused more specifically on particular aspects of eudaimonia in outspoken atheists.
You know, I really rather doubt that.

[Dave Rogers]

Yrreg, your use of the word "eudaimonia" is a classic example of tergiversation. Since the word itself cannot be exactly translated, its definition is therefore capable of a sufficient breadth of interpretation that you can simply amass a body of data, select positive aspects more prevalent in deists than in atheists, and choose a definition of eudaimonia which favours deists. The result will be a circular argument.

I suggest you also re-examine the definition of the word "forensic"; I can find no definition which makes sense when qualified by the modifier "almost".

I presume you actually mean that you want to spy on atheists to find out whether we're happy?

Dave

[Darat]

Fish.

[Lonewulf]

Thought Police, anyone?

[Mojo]

Thought Police, anyone?


No, the Spanish Inquisition.

[Ocelot]

Here you go mate

http://midus.wisc.edu/miduspis/ryff.php

An actual answer to your question. Someone who investigates Eudaimonia by, age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnic/minority status as well as by the experiences, challenges, and transitions individuals confront as they age.

Atheism may be but one of many minority status which she investigates.

[Lonewulf]

No, the Spanish Inquisition.

Same thing, ultimately.

[Boran]

No, the Spanish Inquisition.

That was unexpected ;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

bah, this is disgusting. Do you really imply that all atheists have something dirty to hide ?
Some of us just wish we did.

[ferd burfle]

Only now people some that is have cultivated the tack of burying their heads in sand like the proverbial ostrich, in order to not see what reason and intelligence which they possess for being humans lead them to.

They wilfully limit the universe of discourse so as to pursue their psychology of self-conveniences outside all witnesses, starting with the witness of their reason and intelligence.

Methinks he doth project too much.

Ferd

[kittynh]

Atheists tremble in fear.

Though if you catch an atheists in bed with a young blonde associate, he is not going to go into his pulpit and cry for everyone and God to forgive him on national tv.

Instead he is going to say, "hey shut the door! I'm just trying to get laid here!"

An atheists job description does not include public declarations of moral behavior based on a group agreement.

Now... if you had photographs of an atheist sneaking into a church or temple! (probably just investigating statues crying tears or bleeding... but still that would be something)

[kittynh]

oh and for goodness sake, but a copy of Blaise Pascal and get some good religious arguments. He's a pro and one of my favorites. And don't assume everyone that posts here is an atheist.

There are Buddhists, Xians, agnostics, and I think a few Rasstafarians. One or two Wiccans (no not joking)

[Piscivore]

Fish.

Get out of my head, man!

oh and for goodness sake, but a copy of Blaise Pascal and get some good religious arguments. He's a pro and one of my favorites. And don't assume everyone that posts here is an atheist.

There are Buddhists, Xians, agnostics, and I think a few Rasstafarians. One or two Wiccans (no not joking)

Discordians (not joking either).

(Well, okay, maybe a little.)



(But not about that.)


(No, really.)

[LarianLeQuella]

I love etymology.


You sure you don't men entomology? I could have sworn your behaviour was more akin to a cockroach.

[asmodean]

"HAHA, GOTCHA!"? WTF, how old is the OP, 10?

[Safe-Keeper]

"HAHA, GOTCHA!"? WTF, how old is the OP, 10?I'm starting to wonder if he's a sock puppet of JEROME.

[Jeff Corey]

No, then his cunning non de board would have been EMOREJ.

[Ron_Tomkins]

So yrreg thinks that atheists should be investigated. Investigated for what, exactly?

Their tax record?

[Silentknight]

Okay, fine. Let's just get this out there so that yrreg can't use it against anyone. How many of you ascribe to a view of morality that links virtue and happiness (aka eudaimonism)? What kind of relationship is there between virtue and happiness? Do hedonism and satisfaction of desire lead to what is good and virtuous?

Yes I know those sound rhetorical, but this is basically what yrreg is accusing atheists of.

[arthwollipot]

I tend to feel that helping others makes me happy. I certainly feel happy when I know I've done something that has genuinely helped another person. But I also feel happy when satisfying my own desires.

[Dunstan]

Okay, fine. Let's just get this out there so that yrreg can't use it against anyone. How many of you ascribe to a view of morality that links virtue and happiness (aka eudaimonism)? What kind of relationship is there between virtue and happiness? Do hedonism and satisfaction of desire lead to what is good and virtuous?

Yes I know those sound rhetorical, but this is basically what yrreg is accusing atheists of.

I suspect the "plan" is more like this:

Research shows that atheists are less happy than theists? HAHA! GOTCHA! Atheists obviously only deny God out of misery and bitterness.

Research shows that atheists are happier than theists? HAHA! GOTCHA! Atheists are hedonists who only care about their own pleasure.

Research shows that atheists are equally happy as theists? HAHA! DOUBLE GOTCHA! Atheists are hedonists who only care about their own pleasure, and can't even succeed at that!

[Dave Rogers]

http://midus.wisc.edu/miduspis/ryff.php

An actual answer to your question. Someone who investigates Eudaimonia by, age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnic/minority status as well as by the experiences, challenges, and transitions individuals confront as they age.

Ah, but even this may be ineligible according to the terms of the OP. Is the standard of the investigation so lax as to be not even approximately forensic, or has it been done with such rigour that it would have to be described as entirely forensic? The OP specified "almost forensic", which is a narrow window to hit.

Dave

[Georg]

There are Buddhists, Xians, agnostics, and I think a few RasstaPastafarians. One or two Wiccans (no not joking)


Corrected it for you.

[yrreg]

I guess I'm a little unclear on all this. Since atheism is the default state of human beings when they're born (to the best of my reckoning, anyway), doesn't it make more sense to study the effects of religion on the efforts of humanity to reach the aforementioned "eudaimonia"? From my limited understanding, I'd say the results on that one are mixed, to say the least. However, I could also say that about atheism, I imagine, and not be too terribly wrong.

In any case, Gerry, I'd say you have a long way to go to make much of a case about anything. Judging from the frequency and quality of replies to your posts thus far, I'd say you have a long way to go in making any case about anything. Of course, if you're simply a troll, I suppose you've succeeded.

Bravo?



If you enjoy humor, I do also and even more than you anyone, to the nth degree.


You did not read my insight (last week to another atheist who brought up babies born atheists) into that stock answer you have taken from your masters in obsolete atheism who are worthy subjects for investigations.

You say that babies are born atheists.

Haha, gotcha!

And again a second time to a previous atheist poster who brought up that shallow non-brainer.

Not now attending to babies and their knowledge of God in their infancy, I will just say this for the erudition of atheists here -- as I already said last week (one can't never repeat too much for the sake of pedagogy in regard to one's fellow posters here of the atheist me too fad):

You guys don't seem to have ever reached the age of reason, traditionally reckoned at seven years of age.

Of course kids are nowadays much more precocious than when Kant was talking about the categorical imperative.

But give it to atheists to never ever reach the age of reason, much less intelligence, which reason and intelligence is what makes man different and better qualified to know God, from ants and monkeys.




Yrreg

[GeeMack]

Yeah, yeah. All that, yrreg. And yes, babies are born atheists.

[Jeff Corey]

humor..But give it to atheists to never ever reach the age of reason, much less intelligence, which reason and intelligence is what makes man different and better qualified to know God, from ants and monkeys...

You think you have reached the age of reason. Think again, you clearly haven't. You argue muchlike a confused adolescent, railing against concepts she has no intellectual equipment to understand. A confused bufoon, a strident gainsayer contending against logical arguements.
Grow up.

[yrreg]

You think you have reached the age of reason. Think again, you clearly haven't. You argue muchlike a confused adolescent, railing against concepts she has no intellectual equipment to understand. A confused bufoon, a strident gainsayer contending against logical arguements.
Grow up.


When people write like that, it is a testimony that I am making headway and getting nearer to paydirt.



Yrreg

[Dunstan]

I'm looking for research into the mental state of combative anOdinist trolls. Looks like I'm in the right place.

[KingMerv00]

When people write like that, it is a testimony that I am making headway and getting nearer to paydirt.



Yrreg


Galileo fallacy (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Galileo_fallacy)(AKA appeal to pity)

As Carl once said:


...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

[RoboTimbo]

<snipped double speak>

You say that babies are born atheists.

Haha, gotcha!

<snipped double negative and weird rambling>
Yrreg

Yrreg, are you saying that babies are not born atheists? Yes or no, please. Thank you in advance.

[Lonewulf]

To a child, mother is God.


Not now attending to babies and their knowledge of God in their infancy, I will just say this for the erudition of atheists here -- as I already said last week (one can't never repeat too much for the sake of pedagogy in regard to one's fellow posters here of the atheist me too fad):

You guys don't seem to have ever reached the age of reason, traditionally reckoned at seven years of age.

Of course kids are nowadays much more precocious than when Kant was talking about the categorical imperative.

But give it to atheists to never ever reach the age of reason, much less intelligence, which reason and intelligence is what makes man different and better qualified to know God, from ants and monkeys.

So brainwashing is a sign of maturity?

[Cainkane1]

When people write like that, it is a testimony that I am making headway and getting nearer to paydirt.



Yrreg
No it means the atheist is right and the theists are wrong.

[Egg]

No it means the atheist is right and the theists are wrong.

If one defines "atheist" in such a way (merely lacking a belief) as to include newborn babies, then there's nothing for an atheist to be right about.

[Safe-Keeper]

Not the "are babies atheists" thing again.

Infants don't believe in God any more than they vote for the Democratic party, put faith in horoscopes, or understand that the Earth is round. We're talking incredibly simple lifeforms here. A newborn does not have self-awareness. He or she can't comprehend that a ball doesn't seize existing when it goes outside your field of vision. It doesn't understand that 1+1=2. You can do this experiment at home, yourself. Put a sheet up and put one ball after another behind it. Remove one of the balls covertly and remove the sheet, revealing only one ball. Up to a certain age, the baby doesn't understand that if you have a ball and add another, the result should be two balls, and finds nothing amiss. I could go on and on, and I've even been told that humans don't reach the intelligence level of dogs until the age of two.

But they understand God, and believe in Him? I somehow doubt it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's almost impossible to talk with God's deniers, viz., atheists, about what they are denying, because they are bent on tergiversation ...
Ask me anything. I promise not to tergiversate.

~~ Paul

[CriticalSock]

I leave to the more cunning linguists on this board,

DR

Shameless! :D

[Hokulele]

If one defines "atheist" in such a way (merely lacking a belief) as to include newborn babies, then there's nothing for an atheist to be right about.


Good answer.

I know about 1/3 of all internet threads end up being a debate over semantics*, but this response shows why this is often necessary.



* - And 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[Twiler]

When people write like that, it is a testimony that I am making headway and getting nearer to paydirt.



Yrreg

See, this is why we need atheist buses. Fundamentalists won't be capable of looking at them, and will swiftly become eligible for Darwin awards.

[yrreg]

Ask me anything. I promise not to tergiversate.

~~ Paul



Okay, why do you or do you really take Madalyn Murray O'Hair for a person of emulation by you atheists and consequently for your babies once they reach the age of reason?


That is why I am now concerned with investigating atheists instead of atheism.

To fair evaluation she did not seem to have retained any residual ethical values even though she got born and grew up in a traditional theist society of the Christendom West, specifically in the Christian by great majority, USA.


You look up to people like Madalyn and then complain why the vast majority of Americans look at you as the most untrustworthy minority in America bar none.



Yrreg

[quixotecoyote]

You look up to people like Madalyn and then complain why the vast majority of Americans look at you as the most untrustworthy minority in America bar none.


Gee gerry, the search function tells me you're the first person to mention her name on this thread. You wouldn't be being dishonest again would you? I hear god hates that.

eta: You'll notice I did not compare you to David Waters.

[Foster Zygote]

Okay, why do you or do you really take Madalyn Murray O'Hair for a person of emulation by you atheists and consequently for your babies once they reach the age of reason?
Come on Gerry, I thought you wanted to study atheists. You're just doing the same old dance, telling others what you imagine that they believe rather than simply asking them. How many times have you seen O'Hair mentioned by the atheists in this forum?

That is why I am now concerned with investigating atheists instead of atheism.
I thought you were just building more strawmen.

To fair evaluation she did not seem to have retained any residual ethical values even though she got born and grew up in a traditional theist society of the Christendom West, specifically in the Christian by great majority, USA.
What? Really Gerry, I would have expected such impeccable sentence structure from someone with "tergiversate" in his lexicon. And what unethical behavior was O'Hair supposed to have engaged in anyway?

You look up to people like Madalyn and then complain why the vast majority of Americans look at you as the most untrustworthy minority in America bar none.
Do you really think that because O'Hair was an atheist that atheists are therefor simply emulating her? Are you that logically challenged or are you just flinging poo?

[quixotecoyote]

And what unethical behavior was O'Hair supposed to have engaged in anyway?


AFAIK, her estranged son thinks that she was involved in a theft conspiracy that lead to her death, rather than being kidnapped and coerced.

[Foster Zygote]

AFAIK, her estranged son thinks that she was involved in a theft conspiracy that lead to her death, rather than being kidnapped and coerced.

Not that he's biased...

[brodski]

There are Buddhists, Xians, agnostics, and I think a few Rasstafarians. One or two Wiccans (no not joking)

sssh... don't mention the Buddhists...

Incidentally, my eudaimonia was cleared up by acupuncture.

[yrreg]

I am looking for any autobiography of atheists who are emulated or at least read by their fellow atheists, but I have not found any.

So I look up instead biography of any atheists who have attained some repute with fellow atheists, written by anyone even not any fellow atheists.


You know what?

Not only have I not found any atheist who has written an autobiography, but neither have I found any biography on any atheist written by anyone interested in the atheist whether himself a fellow atheist or not.

So, my suspicion is that no atheist in history has had the inspiration to produce an autobiography, and no one competent to write and enthusiastic about writing biographies of people has found in any atheist a subject worthy of any biography.


I have not made an exhaustive search though.

So, if atheists here can point out to me autobiographies of atheists or biographies written by competent writers whether fellow atheists or not, please let me know.

By the way, I want autobiographies and biographies of atheists in their lifestyle and worldview as atheists.


Here is a suggestion for atheists who know or can research on Madalyn Murray O'Hair, do a biography on her, because she deserves one for being a shaker and mover of an atheist in America.



Yrreg

[Safe-Keeper]

There are Buddhists, Xians, agnostics, and I think a few Rasstafarians. One or two Wiccans (no not joking)No Buddhists. Yrreg changed them:D.

[Twiler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Biographies
http://www.notablebiographies.com/An-Ba/Asimov-Isaac.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gouldsj.html
http://www.turing.org.uk/book/index.html
http://www.experiencefestival.com/will_wright_-_biography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot#Biographies
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1990/gorbachev-bio.html

Exactly how long did you spend looking?

[Dunstan]

Exactly how long did you spend looking?

He was too busy tergiversating.

[Cavemonster]

He was too busy tergiversating.

He should cut down. I heard that could lead to hairy palms.

[gdnp]

I am looking for any autobiography of atheists who are emulated or at least read by their fellow atheists, but I have not found any.

So I look up instead biography of any atheists who have attained some repute with fellow atheists, written by anyone even not any fellow atheists.

By the way, I want autobiographies and biographies of atheists in their lifestyle and worldview as atheists.

Here is a suggestion for atheists who know or can research on Madalyn Murray O'Hair, do a biography on her, because she deserves one for being a shaker and mover of an atheist in America.

You seem to have been taken in by the common theist fallacy that athiesm is some sort of religion in itself. It is not. Is simply the lack of belief in God. Atheists don't spend their time at atheist meetings Sunday morning when you are at church. Some mow the lawn. Some sleep late. Some read the newspaper. Some ride their bikes.

Most atheists only become outspoken about their atheism when theists attempt to impose their religious beliefs on society. Otherwise they live their lives like anyone else. So any time you read a biography and the author does not talk about his or her belief in God, there is a good chance that person is an athiest.

Phrased another way, looking for biographies of atheists is sort of like looking for biographies of people who don't believe in Santa Claus. There are lots of them out there, but an author is more likely to spend time discussing what a person does believe in and what he or she has done than what he does not believe in.

[Foster Zygote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Biographies
http://www.notablebiographies.com/An-Ba/Asimov-Isaac.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gouldsj.html
http://www.turing.org.uk/book/index.html
http://www.experiencefestival.com/will_wright_-_biography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot#Biographies
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1990/gorbachev-bio.html

Exactly how long did you spend looking?

As long as he could manage without finding anything he would rather not find. I'm guessing about three seconds.

Here are some other names that came up in a brief five minute search I conducted:
Aldous Huxley
Andrew Carnegie
Ernest Hemingway
Arthur C. Clarke
Bertrand Russell
Frank Zappa
Gene Roddenberry
Arthur Rubenstein
Gloria Steinam
Kurt Vonnegut
Dr. James Watson
James Joyce
Henry Louis "H.L." Mencken
Robert A. Heinlein
George Orwell
Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain"
William M. Gaines (How cool is that?)
Robert G. Ingersoll
Robert Frost
Thomas Edison
Sigmund Freud
Charles Laughton
Ambrose Bierce
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Noel Coward
Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin
Burrhus Frederick "B. F." Skinner
Albert Camus
H. P. Lovecraft
Arthur Schopenhauer
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Robert Altman

[Tricky]

So, if atheists here can point out to me autobiographies of atheists or biographies written by competent writers whether fellow atheists or not, please let me know.
I'm reading Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s A Man Without a Country (http://www.amazon.com/Man-Without-Country-Kurt-Vonnegut/dp/081297736X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228620717&sr=8-8). You might not call it an autobiography, but it is definitely a memoir. Vonnegut is one of the best-selling authors of the last fifty years and is loudly and unabashedly atheist. He's also written lots of things about his life in books like Amgeddon in Retrospect (http://www.amazon.com/Armageddon-Retrospect-Kurt-Vonnegut/dp/0399155082/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228620827&sr=8-15)and the liner notes to many of his works.

And this is without even searching. Something tells me you're not looking very hard, yrreg.

ETA:
with a few seconds search I come up with more.

Heathen Days (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBN=9780801885327&ourl=Heathen%2DDays%2FH%2DL%2DMencken), the autobiography of H. L. Mencken.
Arthur C. Clarke: The Authorized Biography (http://www.amazon.com/Arthur-C-Clarke-Authorized-Biography/dp/0809237202)
Noel Coward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Coward#Death)(Three volume autobiography)

And again, that is with a minimum of searching. I'm sure there are many more. U smell like FAIL!

[Ausmerican]

And if one were to include agnostics then the names Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spring to mind. They are both subjects of several biographies each. Lewis Black also has an autobiography. I recommend the audio book version of that because it's funnier if Lewis tells you himself.

[yrreg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Biographies
http://www.notablebiographies.com/An-Ba/Asimov-Isaac.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gouldsj.html
http://www.turing.org.uk/book/index.html
http://www.experiencefestival.com/will_wright_-_biography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot#Biographies
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1990/gorbachev-bio.html

Exactly how long did you spend looking?


Just choose any one and only one of the entries you have dug up above and I will examine it, if it is genuinely an autobiography or a biography and not just a superficial few words about someone having had a period of existence.

And not any paragraph in a reference work.

I want an autobiography or a biography that does justice to the atheist as atheist, like for theists The Confessions of St. Augustine or Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua.

Or The Life and Times of Samuel Johnson by Boswell.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

An autobiography or biography of an atheist as atheist should tell readers how being an atheist had been a satisfactory life for the subject himself, and also more importantly earned himself sincere recognition from mankind for the happiness of great numbers of people the subject has contributed to.

Then readers can judge the subject on his own words or the words of his biographer, what kind of a human being he had lived for the stint of existence he had been alloted, in respect to himself and to his neighbors as also compared to ants and monkeys.



Yrreg

[fishbob]

snip / . . . . I want . . . . / snip

I don't care what you want. I suspect that nobody cares what you want.

[PixyMisa]

An autobiography or biography of an atheist as atheist should tell readers how being an atheist had been a satisfactory life for the subject himself, and also more importantly earned himself sincere recognition from mankind for the happiness of great numbers of people the subject has contributed to.
You seem confused.

Atheism is rarely a defining characteristic for anyone. The sole quality required is not believing in gods. So any great accomplishments or happiness an atheist creates would most likely come from other fields entirely.

Do you believe in unicorns? If not, do you believe your biography should be considered solely in the light of your aunicornism?

Then readers can judge the subject on his own words or the words of his biographer, what kind of a human being he had lived for the stint of existence he had been alloted, in respect to himself and to his neighbors as also compared to ants and monkeys.
Yeah, whatever.

[Lonewulf]

I don't care what you want. I suspect that nobody cares what you want.

I don't.

[zooterkin]

Vonnegut is one of the best-selling authors of the last fifty years and is loudly and unabashedly atheist.

"Was", rather than "is", now, sadly. So it goes.

Stephen Fry has written his autobiography, though I don't know if it addresses his atheism. Hugh Laurie, coincidentally, is another English atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_atheists).

[Twiler]

Just choose any one and only one of the entries you have dug up above and I will examine it, if it is genuinely an autobiography or a biography and not just a superficial few words about someone having had a period of existence.

And not any paragraph in a reference work.

I want an autobiography or a biography that does justice to the atheist as atheist, like for theists The Confessions of St. Augustine or Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua.

Or The Life and Times of Samuel Johnson by Boswell.



Yrreg

What, you lack the energy to read more than one?

[Dunstan]

As long as he could manage without finding anything he would rather not find. I'm guessing about three seconds.

Here are some other names that came up in a brief five minute search I conducted:
Aldous Huxley
Andrew Carnegie
Ernest Hemingway
Arthur C. Clarke
Bertrand Russell
Frank Zappa
Gene Roddenberry
Arthur Rubenstein
Gloria Steinam
Kurt Vonnegut
Dr. James Watson
James Joyce
Henry Louis "H.L." Mencken
Robert A. Heinlein
George Orwell
Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain"
William M. Gaines (How cool is that?)
Robert G. Ingersoll
Robert Frost
Thomas Edison
Sigmund Freud
Charles Laughton
Ambrose Bierce
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Noel Coward
Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin
Burrhus Frederick "B. F." Skinner
Albert Camus
H. P. Lovecraft
Arthur Schopenhauer
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Robert Altman

Or, in terms yrreg will understand:

HA!HA! GOTCHA!

[Mojo]

Interestingly, I can find no mention of Saint Pachomius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachomius)'s lack of belief in Odin. Yrreg must therefore conclude that Pachomius was a believer in the pantheon of Norse Gods.

[gdnp]

An autobiography or biography of an atheist as atheist should tell readers how being an atheist had been a satisfactory life for the subject himself, and also more importantly earned himself sincere recognition from mankind for the happiness of great numbers of people the subject has contributed to.

Then readers can judge the subject on his own words or the words of his biographer, what kind of a human being he had lived for the stint of existence he had been alloted, in respect to himself and to his neighbors as also compared to ants and monkeys.



Would you expect the biography of someone who is not a football fan to spend a lot of time discussing why they were not interested in football, how they had a satisfactory life while not attending superbowl parties, or how their lack of interest in football earned them the recognition of mankind? I wouldn't. I would expect the majority of biographies of non-football fans to mention football fleetingly or not at all.

Or would you only be interested in the non-football fans that spend their lives railing against the evils of football, attempting to discourage others from attending football games, or filing lawsuits against public funding of football stadiums? If so, you would be limiting yourself to a very small segment of non-football fans: a segment composed of anti-football zealots so consumed with their dislike of football that they are unlikely to contribute much else to society. Essentially, the Madeline Murry O'Hares of football.

Most atheists do not wear their atheism on their sleeves. They have more important things to do with their time.

[Safe-Keeper]

An autobiography or biography of a disbeliever in astrology as a disbeliever in astrology should tell readers how being a disbeliever in astrology had been a satisfactory life for the subject himself, and also more importantly earned himself sincere recognition from mankind for the happiness of great numbers of people the subject has contributed to.Why?

[Foster Zygote]

Speaking of monkeys: It's one thing to fling poo, it's another thing to get it all over yourself in the process.

[dafydd]

http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/TextName.aspx?PhilCode=Russ

[RoboTimbo]

An autobiography or biography of an atheist as atheist should tell readers how being an atheist had been a satisfactory life for the subject himself, and also more importantly earned himself sincere recognition from mankind for the happiness of great numbers of people the subject has contributed to.

Then readers can judge the subject on his own words or the words of his biographer, what kind of a human being he had lived for the stint of existence he had been alloted, in respect to himself and to his neighbors as also compared to ants and monkeys.



Yrreg


I've yet to find your autobiography depicting your life as an anOdinist. I can only conclude that you are anti-intelligent. See how the one follows the other? Aren't you a mover and shaker in the anOdinist camp?

[Edges]

An autobiography or biography of an atheist as atheist should tell readers how being an atheist had been a satisfactory life for the subject himself, and also more importantly earned himself sincere recognition from mankind for the happiness of great numbers of people the subject has contributed to.

Already addressed, but why? (Most) Atheists do not attribute their success in life to the fact that they are atheists. (Most) Theists do attribute their success in life to the fact that they are a theist. So while it makes sense that a theist would discuss their theism when talking about their accomplishments, it makes no sense for an atheist to do the same with their atheism.

Say that one baseball player believes that if he wears green shoelaces, he will play a perfect game because baseball fairies like green shoelaces. Another player doesn't believe that green shoelaces will affect his game in any way because he doesn't believe in the baseball fairies. Both play a perfect game and are interviewed afterwards. While one can expect the superstitious one to attribute his game to the green shoelaces pleasing the baseball fairies, would it really make sense for the other to attribute his success to his lack of belief in the baseball fairies? Or would it make more sense for him to talk about the things that he knows affected his game, like good health and practice habits?

If the second player spent most of his time decrying the belief in baseball fairies, sure, he might point out that even though he didn't wear green shoelaces and doesn't believe in baseball fairies, he still managed to play a perfect game like the one who did and does. Assuming that he doesn't really worry about what his teammate believes, this reaction would make no sense.

[Edges]

Also, it is patently ridiculous to suggest that because atheists have that in common with Madelyn Murray O'Hair, they emulate and admire her. Being prominent is not the same as being popular.

I figure skate, but I don't emulate and admire every Olympic figure skater.

I'm also a writer, but I don't admire every author who has written a bestseller.

[RandFan]

Yyreg, I think what people are trying to say is that even though there is an ample abundance of examples to satisfy your request it is still a really dumb request that wouldn't serve any purpose.

[yrreg]

Speaking of monkeys: It's one thing to fling poo, it's another thing to get it all over yourself in the process.*



You are the most qualified to write your own autobiography, and many atheists will read it to their overwhelming edification and confirmation and reinforcement in persevering as atheists.

Why? Because in your own words you were a practicing Christian and turned to atheism, certainly for the bonanzas a galore you are now enjoying, like rational consistency and guiltless masturbation.

I will welcome a good complete no holds barred of your autobiography.


Really I can't find any autobiography of outspoken atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the web; but you Foster can do credit to fellow atheists because you still retain volumes of ethical values from your erstwhile Christian life and worldview.

So, I implore you, write your autobiography.

But as I said no atheist will write an autobiography talking about his life as an atheist, everything laid bare, specially the tremendous bonanzas a galore from the embrace of atheism, which bonanzas the rest of mankind believers in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, are missing.

Take this, Foster, as a challenge to you, you owe it to your chaos-chance of an in effect god of atheists, to talk all about your frustrations, trials, disappointments, failures in life as a Christian, no one loved you, etc., until you switched to the profession of an atheist, and now your life has become one continuous unadulterated bout of bliss.



*No need to bring in poo here, we are into civil exchange of thoughts; if you don't like the comparison between ants and monkeys on the one hand, and atheists on the other, just the same no call at all to bring in poo.

My point is just to tell you that for being atheists there is no essential difference from the part of atheists vis-a-vis ants and monkeys.

Do some substantive thinking:

If you inhibit your reason and intelligence to the knowledge of God, then what is there to be superior to in respect to ants and monkeys, which are noble creatures although without reason and intelligence -- for they observe God's programs for themselves, and never complain ever against Him and His dispositions of the universe, starting with their own kind and manner of existence and life.

But atheists, they are really a very gripe-some lot; and the tragedy is that they can't see this gripe-some attitude in themselves, for not cultivating the habit of honest self-examination -- because they are always self-enveloped in querulous self-pity which plunges them into rabid anger at everything good, true, and beautiful.


No offense really intended, we are just exercising some more, err, less polite yet still from my own part civil but strained exchange of thoughts.



Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

You are the most qualified to write your own autobiography, and many atheists will read it to their overwhelming edification and confirmation and reinforcement in persevering as atheists.

Why? Because in your own words you were a practicing Christian and turned to atheism, certainly for the bonanzas a galore you are now enjoying, like rational consistency and guiltless masturbation.

I will welcome a good complete no holds barred of your autobiography.


Really I can't find any autobiography of outspoken atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the web; but you Foster can do credit to fellow atheists because you still retain volumes of ethical values from your erstwhile Christian life and worldview.

So, I implore you, write your autobiography.

But as I said no atheist will write an autobiography talking about his life as an atheist, everything laid bare, specially the tremendous bonanzas a galore from the embrace of atheism, which bonanzas the rest of mankind believers in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, are missing.

Take this, Foster, as a challenge to you, you owe it to your chaos-chance of an in effect god of atheists, to talk all about your frustrations, trials, disappointments, failures in life as a Christian, no one loved you, etc., until you switched to the profession of an atheist, and now your life has become one continuous unadulterated bout of bliss.



*No need to bring in poo here, we are into civil exchange of thoughts; if you don't like the comparison between ants and monkeys on the one hand, and atheists on the other, just the same no call at all to bring in poo.

My point is just to tell you that for being atheists there is no essential difference from the part of atheists vis-a-vis ants and monkeys.

Do some substantive thinking:

If you inhibit your reason and intelligence to the knowledge of God, then what is there to be superior to in respect to ants and monkeys, which are noble creatures although without reason and intelligence -- for they observe God's programs for themselves, and never complain ever against Him and His dispositions of the universe, starting with their own kind and manner of existence and life.

But atheists, they are really a very gripe-some lot; and the tragedy is that they can't see this gripe-some attitude in themselves, for not cultivating the habit of honest self-examination -- because they are always self-enveloped in querulous self-pity which plunges them into rabid anger at everything good, true, and beautiful.


No offense really intended, we are just exercising some more, err, less polite yet still from my own part civil but strained exchange of thoughts.



Yrreg

I like you, you're funny.

[Hokulele]

Why? Because in your own words you were a practicing Christian and turned to atheism, certainly for the bonanzas a galore you are now enjoying, like rational consistency and guiltless masturbation.


Rational consistency is a bad thing?

And does this mean Christians enjoy guilty masturbation?

[Foster Zygote]

And does this mean Christians enjoy guilty masturbation?

It's good to be bad.

[Greediguts]

Why? Because in your own words you were a practicing Christian and turned to atheism, certainly for the bonanzas a galore you are now enjoying, like rational consistency and guiltless masturbation.



Wow! I joined-up for the softball league and discounts on car rentals. I had no idea there were more perks!!

[Foster Zygote]

Wow! I joined-up for the softball league and discounts on car rentals. I had no idea there were more perks!!

Oh yeah, you can beat it like it owes you money. Just not during the softball games.

[gdnp]

You are the most qualified to write your own autobiography <snip>

Congratulations. You finally said something that makes sense.

But atheists, they are really a very gripe-some lot; and the tragedy is that they can't see this gripe-some attitude in themselves, for not cultivating the habit of honest self-examination -- because they are always self-enveloped in querulous self-pity which plunges them into rabid anger at everything good, true, and beautiful.
I would write more, but your post was so good, true, and beautiful that I have plunged into rabid anger. Excuse me while I try to assuage my querulous self-pity with guiltless masturbation.


No offense really intended,

None taken. Gotta go. Mr. Hand is waiting.

[Lonewulf]

But atheists, they are really a very gripe-some lot; and the tragedy is that they can't see this gripe-some attitude in themselves, for not cultivating the habit of honest self-examination -- because they are always self-enveloped in querulous self-pity which plunges them into rabid anger at everything good, true, and beautiful.

"I don't believe in God or gods"

"Oh, you're so full of self-pity! How much rabid anger at everything good, true, and beautiful!"

o.O

[RandFan]

Do some substantive thinking::rolleyes:

Look in the mirror dude.

But atheists, they are really a very gripe-some lot; and the tragedy is that they can't see this gripe-some attitude in themselves, for not cultivating the habit of honest self-examination -- because they are always self-enveloped in querulous self-pity which plunges them into rabid anger at everything good, true, and beautiful. Oh nonsense. Get over yourself.

No offense really intended, we are just exercising some more, err, less polite yet still from my own part civil but strained exchange of thoughts. I can't find anything of substance in your posts. It's largely just fake humility and patronizing lecturing. You are unbelievably narcissistic. Why don't you skip all of that and have a real discussion? Lose the ego and stop the condescending attitude. You really are not all that. Besides, it's boorish and inefective. Why waste your time?

[KingMerv00]

But atheists, they are really a very gripe-some lot; and the tragedy is that they can't see this gripe-some attitude in themselves, for not cultivating the habit of honest self-examination -- because they are always self-enveloped in querulous self-pity which plunges them into rabid anger at everything good, true, and beautiful.


Bigot.

http://ozatheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/the-atheist-e.jpg

[yrreg]

Glad everyone is having a good time.


But I am really interested to read a biography of an atheist written by himself or by a competent writer who goes into the subject's life as an atheist.

You give me, atheists here, names of atheists but not any really genuine biography done with all the inside information and also analysis and synthesis of the life history of the atheist subject.


For example, as I said already, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is certainly a most deserving subject for a biographical study.

Tell you what, atheists should put together some good money to raise up some kind of hall of fame of atheists, where you will put busts of atheists of great repute who have contributed to the reinforcement of atheists in their atheist existence and life.




Yrreg

[Yubi]

I don't really know what you are after, but I'm sure you could find all kinds of biographies written on Bertrand Russell, whose life I would consider rather interesting.

[Ryokan]

I am looking for any autobiography of atheists who are emulated or at least read by their fellow atheists, but I have not found any.

So I look up instead biography of any atheists who have attained some repute with fellow atheists, written by anyone even not any fellow atheists.


You know what?

Not only have I not found any atheist who has written an autobiography, but neither have I found any biography on any atheist written by anyone interested in the atheist whether himself a fellow atheist or not.

So, my suspicion is that no atheist in history has had the inspiration to produce an autobiography, and no one competent to write and enthusiastic about writing biographies of people has found in any atheist a subject worthy of any biography.


I have not made an exhaustive search though.

So, if atheists here can point out to me autobiographies of atheists or biographies written by competent writers whether fellow atheists or not, please let me know.

By the way, I want autobiographies and biographies of atheists in their lifestyle and worldview as atheists.


Here is a suggestion for atheists who know or can research on Madalyn Murray O'Hair, do a biography on her, because she deserves one for being a shaker and mover of an atheist in America.



Yrreg

Try 'I. Asimov: A Memoir' by Isaac Asimov. He speaks a bit about his atheism and views on religion in general there.

If every man was as kind, rational and intelligent as Asimov, this would've been a fantastic planet to live on. I admire him immensly.

Good luck finding dirt on him.

[Twiler]

Glad everyone is having a good time.


But I am really interested to read a biography of an atheist written by himself or by a competent writer who goes into the subject's life as an atheist.

You give me, atheists here, names of atheists but not any really genuine biography done with all the inside information and also analysis and synthesis of the life history of the atheist subject.


For example, as I said already, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is certainly a most deserving subject for a biographical study.

Tell you what, atheists should put together some good money to raise up some kind of hall of fame of atheists, where you will put busts of atheists of great repute who have contributed to the reinforcement of atheists in their atheist existence and life.




Yrreg

Yes, I agree atheists are brilliant people. I'm glad that you approve of us so completely. Why not join us in our crusade to set all men free of self-delusion?

[soikins]

Tell you what, atheists should put together some good money to raise up some kind of hall of fame of atheists, where you will put busts of atheists of great repute who have contributed to the reinforcement of atheists in their atheist existence and life.

Why? So you could say "Look! Atheism is a religion, they have saints just like Catholics!" most atheists are not into all this idol worshiping thing.
It wouldn't make much sense either. Maybe we should create a hall of fame of people who didn't collect stamps?

[gdnp]

Glad everyone is having a good time.


But I am really interested to read a biography of an atheist written by himself or by a competent writer who goes into the subject's life as an atheist.

You give me, atheists here, names of atheists but not any really genuine biography done with all the inside information and also analysis and synthesis of the life history of the atheist subject.


For example, as I said already, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is certainly a most deserving subject for a biographical study.

Tell you what, atheists should put together some good money to raise up some kind of hall of fame of atheists, where you will put busts of atheists of great repute who have contributed to the reinforcement of atheists in their atheist existence and life.


Why focus on atheists? They are not the only ones who do not believe in your god. Why not read some biographies of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc? They all agree with atheists that your God is simply a myth. There is one difference, though. Atheists are less likely to want to kill you for your mistaken beliefs.

[Lonewulf]

Why focus on atheists? They are not the only ones who do not believe in your god. Why not read some biographies of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc? They all agree with atheists that your God is simply a myth. There is one difference, though. Atheists are less likely to want to kill you for your mistaken beliefs.

Wait -- you think Hindus and Buddhists are more likely to kill others based on their beliefs?

I can see Shinto, maybe, but that's only State Shinto, and that's based on Divine Rule.

[gdnp]

Wait -- you think Hindus and Buddhists are more likely to kill others based on their beliefs?

I can see Shinto, maybe, but that's only State Shinto, and that's based on Divine Rule.

Well, I must admit I don't know too much about Buddhists. The Hindus and the Muslims in India and Pakistan don't appear to be all that tolerant of each other, however.

[Lonewulf]

Well, I must admit I don't know too much about Buddhists. The Hindus and the Muslims in India and Pakistan don't appear to be all that tolerant of each other, however.

Is the conflict necessarily religion-based, though? To put it another way, are those under the Hindu religion more likely to kill someone *because* of their religion (and no other reason at all), or because someone won't convert to their religion?

[Ryokan]

Why focus on atheists? They are not the only ones who do not believe in your god. Why not read some biographies of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc? They all agree with atheists that your God is simply a myth. There is one difference, though. Atheists are less likely to want to kill you for your mistaken beliefs.

Please don't get Yrreg started on Buddhists again....

[Edges]

Tell you what, atheists should put together some good money to raise up some kind of hall of fame of atheists, where you will put busts of atheists of great repute who have contributed to the reinforcement of atheists in their atheist existence and life.


Why? If atheists wanted to do something like that, don't you think they would have by now? What, really, would be the point? Atheism is not like baseball.

[zooterkin]

But I am really interested to read a biography of an atheist written by himself or by a competent writer who goes into the subject's life as an atheist.

As it happens, you've actually been given a couple of suggestions, but of course you're missing the point. How much space do biographies of Christians give to their life as someone who doesn't believe in Shiva, or Zeus, or (your favourite) Odin?


For example, as I said already, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is certainly a most deserving subject for a biographical study.

You seem to have quite an obsession with this person, whoever he/she is. Why is that?

[RoboTimbo]

Glad everyone is having a good time.

Me too, you post funny stuff.

But I am really interested to read a biography of an atheist written by himself or by a competent writer who goes into the subject's life as an atheist.

By the way, how's that autobiography of you as an anOdinist coming along?

You give me, atheists here, names of atheists but not any really genuine biography done with all the inside information and also analysis and synthesis of the life history of the atheist subject.

By the way, how's that autobiography of you as a Zeus denier coming along?

For example, as I said already, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is certainly a most deserving subject for a biographical study.

Tell you what, atheists should put together some good money to raise up some kind of hall of fame of atheists, where you will put busts of atheists of great repute who have contributed to the reinforcement of atheists in their atheist existence and life.

Whose statues will go alongside yours in the anOdinist and Zeus denier halls of fame?

Yrreg

You really don't like to address points that you have no answer to, do you?

[fuelair]

Glad everyone is having a good time.


But I am really interested to read a biography of an atheist written by himself or by a competent writer who goes into the subject's life as an atheist.

You give me, atheists here, names of atheists but not any really genuine biography done with all the inside information and also analysis and synthesis of the life history of the atheist subject.


For example, as I said already, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is certainly a most deserving subject for a biographical study.

Tell you what, atheists should put together some good money to raise up some kind of hall of fame of atheists, where you will put busts of atheists of great repute who have contributed to the reinforcement of atheists in their atheist existence and life.




YrregTry this for a start - find the biographies/autobiographies on your own or write them yourself (or pay me to do your research). Add Robert Ingersoll to the group here (I may have missed him in it).

[Mister Agenda]

There are already a couple of biographies of O'Hair, one fairly objective, the other by a fundamentalist and presumably less than objective. She was a shameless self-promoter and controlling mother who was hard to live with. She didn't deservie to be murdered, but I don't see why anyone would want to emulate her and don't know anyone who does. She was rather popular among atheists in the sixties when no one else was speaking up for their point of view, but in those days you had to revel in having abuse heaped on you to want to be an atheist spokesperson, so that's the kind of spokesperson they got.

[Mister Agenda]

Rather than refer Yrreg to the volumes of writings by Ingersoll, he could look up 'An American Infidel: Robert G. Ingersoll, a Biography'.

[Mister Agenda]

But as I said no atheist will write an autobiography talking about his life as an atheist, everything laid bare, specially the tremendous bonanzas a galore from the embrace of atheism, which bonanzas the rest of mankind believers in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, are missing.
Yrreg

I think you've hit on the fundamental difference between us. You think things should be believed based on supposed benefits that accrue from doing so. I think things should only be believed based on how likely they are to be true. Naturally, that leaves us at an impasse.

[RandFan]

I think things should only be believed based on how likely they are to be true. Amen.

[Safe-Keeper]

I think things should only be believed based on how likely they are to be true. You damned cynic:p.

[Silentknight]

Why? Because in your own words you were a practicing Christian and turned to atheism, certainly for the bonanzas a galore you are now enjoying, like rational consistency and guiltless masturbation.

In other words, you belive it's okay to masturbate as long as one feels guilty about doing it? Or are you talking about the guilty thoughts that invariably coincide with the temptation to touch oneself? Poor uptight theists. Masturbate, you'll feel better.

[fuelair]

Extra points if you whack off to thoughts of Jeebus on the cross!!

[Humanzee]

Bravo Mister Agenda.

Isn't it possible, yrrreg, that 'evil' athiest don't feel the need to preach their beliefs, but prefer to allow people to come to their own conclusions based on their personal experience?

[Dr Adequate]

I love etymology.

If you are wondering what I mean by the words I use, look up the etymology and you will get the basic meaning of what I mean by the words I use.

Forensic? Look up the etymology.

Tergiversation? look up the etymology.

Eudaimonia? Look up the etymology.


You see, when you look up etymologies of words, you will realize that many questions today have been discussed thousands of years back.

Only now people some that is have cultivated the tack of burying their heads in sand like the proverbial ostrich, in order to not see what reason and intelligence which they possess for being humans lead them to.

They wilfully limit the universe of discourse so as to pursue their psychology of self-conveniences outside all witnesses, starting with the witness of their reason and intelligence.

Which however any baby can discern even without taking up formal training in psychology.



Okay, if you know of any investigators of atheists, outspoken ones, please introduce them to me, specially those who undertake investigation ala fervor of bounty hunters.


And as before I notice that atheists here are tergiversating.

Start the investigation, look up an outspoken atheist for example of recent US history and start investigating his or her eudaimonia.




Yrreg


Scuse me, there's something I'd like to try.

I love etymology.

If you are wondering what I mean by the words I use, look up the etymology and you will get the basic meaning of what I mean by the words I use.

Forensic? Look up the etymology.

Tergiversation? look up the etymology.

Eudaimonia? Look up the etymology.


You see, when you look up etymologies of words, you will realize that many questions today have been discussed thousands of years back.

Only now people some that is have cultivated the tack of burying their heads in sand like the proverbial ostrich, in order to not see what reason and intelligence which they possess for being humans lead them to.

They wilfully limit the universe of discourse so as to pursue their psychology of self-conveniences outside all witnesses, starting with the witness of their reason and intelligence.

Which however any baby can discern even without taking up formal training in psychology.



Okay, if you know of any investigators of atheists, outspoken ones, please introduce them to me, specially those who undertake investigation ala fervor of bounty hunters.


And as before I notice that atheists here are tergiversating.

Start the investigation, look up an outspoken atheist for example of recent US history and start investigating his or her eudaimonia.




Yrreg I was right, it didn't make that much difference.

[kbm99]

In other words, you belive it's okay to masturbate as long as one feels guilty about doing it? Or are you talking about the guilty thoughts that invariably coincide with the temptation to touch oneself? Poor uptight theists. Masturbate, you'll feel better.

Actually, based on his prior posting habits, he thinks guiltless masturbation/sex is what *motivates* people to be come atheists.

We're all just in it for the chance to rub one out/commit adultery without all the hassle of going to confession afterward.

[jj]

Is it just me, or do others find the OP completely disjoint and confused to the point of incomprehensibility?

[KingMerv00]

Is it just me...

At the very least, it is the two of us.

[gdnp]

Is it just me, or do others find the OP completely disjoint and confused to the point of incomprehensibility?

No, it's not you.

The best I can tell he wants to read about how people's lives have been enriched by their atheism. It has been pointed out that this is akin to writing a book about how someone's life has been enriched by their lack of interest in football, but he has not responded. There have been biographies of several prominent atheists, mentioned but it seems they are not outspoken enough in their atheism to count.

[wdimac]

Step 1. Assume Atheism is a religion.
Step 2. Look for biographies about atheists that talk about atheism as a religion.
Step 3. Fail to find above.
Step 4. Accuse atheists of not being good atheists.
Step 5. Wonder why everyone is laughing at me.

[jj]

How is my life enhanced by atheism?

I get a good night's sleep Saturday night.

Next, please.

[articulett]

Actually, based on his prior posting habits, he thinks guiltless masturbation/sex is what *motivates* people to be come atheists.

We're all just in it for the chance to rub one out/commit adultery without all the hassle of going to confession afterward.

Well, that's why I joined...
you mean there are other reasons?

[calebprime]

I really noticed that my sex life picked up when I became an atheist--from having sex once a day, to having it as much as 7 or 8 times a day!

[Cainkane1]

You see, man is the measure of everything that man concerns himself with.

God is one thing man concerns himself with.

As far as my knowledge of man's relationship with God goes, man first got to know God's existence, then some men started to deny God's existence.

It's almost impossible to talk with God's deniers, viz., atheists, about what they are denying, because they are bent on tergiversation (look up that word, get its etymology for a complete understanding of what is tergiversation).

So I have decided to look for people who investigate outspoken atheists to find out how they are getting on in this big business of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Eudaimonia is what everyone who has an activated brain is working for.

I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists and their eudaimonia.


This thread will be further focused more specifically on particular aspects of eudaimonia in outspoken atheists.



Yrreg
Stop posting if this is as good as you can do.

[KingMerv00]

Well, that's why I joined...
you mean there are other reasons?

Don't feel bad. All of us atheists have trouble listening every once in a while.

It takes a bit of practice, but if actually STOP your guiltless masturbation for 30 seconds you'll see people discussing "logic" or some such jibber jabber.

*Guiltless Atheist Egg Timer goes off*

Whoops! Time's up. Back to work...Man, doing an atheist's duty is exhausting.

[articulett]

Oh...
so life isn't just a bowl of orgasms?

[KingMerv00]

Oh...
so life isn't just a bowl of orgasms?


If you meet the right person....



*atheist duty*




you might even...




*atheist duty*


work some cherries into the mix.

[articulett]

hmmmm...
I think I lost mine in the line of duty--

[gdnp]

Well, that's why I joined...
you mean there are other reasons?

Well, if you feel guilty about it you can ask to be spanked...

[articulett]

I think I prefer to be the spanker...

[KingMerv00]

:eye-poppi

What was this thread about again?

[ThatSoundAgain]

Dolphins, care and handling of.

[articulett]

Since we're now on the topic of dolphins, I had a student (I'm a science teacher) ask me the following yesterday, "Is it true that you can't swim naked with dolphins because they'll try and rape you?"

I said I didn't have any expertise on the subject, but I'd ask around.

So?

[Macoy]

Swimming naked with dogs can have surprising affects, I'm told. (They have inquisitive noses, apparently).

[Akhenaten]

I don't believe in dolphins. They just make me so angry.

[articulett]

I know what you mean--
the tooth fairy is such a bitch--
ever since I stopped believing in her I have been filled with angst and ire.

[articulett]

Swimming naked with dogs can have surprising affects, I'm told. (They have inquisitive noses, apparently).

It seems they may have other inquisitive body parts:

COuJJBibGWM

(One must always be on the look out for male godless mammals it appears. The dolphin doesn't look angry, I must note, however.)

[SimonD]

Why is it that god seems to find such dumb people to fight his cause?

[articulett]

Judging from the dolphin video, I am beginning to conclude that if you have unusual sexual proclivities and a particularly strong sex drive, you'd probably be happier as an atheist--

--otherwise, you might be forced to fritter away your sexual angst at a skeptic's forum trying to convince yourself that you are happier than all those "angry" atheists.

[articulett]

Why is it that god seems to find such dumb people to fight his cause?

I wonder that myself... his spokespeople never seem to be anyone I'd want to be more like. Perhaps he's showing "compassion" in recruiting the neuronally disadvantaged for his cause?

(If so, that's big of him.)

[KingMerv00]

From angry atheists to dolphin rape.

Well done guys. You make me so proud. Normally, I'd be against this sorta of derailment but not every poster deserves our respect.

[Macoy]

I'm worried that if god wanted me to have sex with her/him/it, and I didn't fancy them, would I be condemned to eternal damnation?

"Look, god, it's not you, it's me. I just need some space. About a universe full."

[articulett]

...I love you god.... just not in that way...

[articulett]

I love you, but I'm not IN love with you, God--

I love Jesus too-- but like a brother, ya' know.

[KingMerv00]

I love you, but I'm not IN love with you, God--

I love Jesus too-- but like a brother, ya' know.

I hear the Holy Spirit totally digs you btw. Something about wanting to fill your heart? Bit of a stalker if you ask me.

I dated Mary for a little while but she isn't big on displays of affection, public or otherwise. (In retrospect, I should have seen that coming.)

[articulett]

I hear the Holy Spirit totally digs you btw. Something about wanting to fill your heart? Bit of a stalker if you ask me.

I dated Mary for a little while but she isn't big on displays of affection, public or otherwise. (In retrospect, I should have seen that coming.)

Actually I don't think you could see anything coming-- it was immaculate and all...

(Maybe you're an angry atheist because Mary was a prick tease?)

As for the holy spirit-- no way... I don't do ghosts... not succubi... nor incubi.... not holy triune entities... all my lovers must be visible-- it's a minimum requirement. Call me an angry atheist if you will, but a girl must have her standards.

[articulett]

And since I've already confessed on another thread-- I have eaten Jesus before.

He tastes like wheat.

[jj]

And since I've already confessed on another thread-- I have eaten Jesus before.

He tastes like wheat.

Now this thread is genuinely toast.

[RandFan]

Why is it that god seems to find such dumb people to fight his cause?:)

[Greediguts]

Since we're now on the topic of dolphins, I had a student (I'm a science teacher) ask me the following yesterday, "Is it true that you can't swim naked with dolphins because they'll try and rape you?"

I said I didn't have any expertise on the subject, but I'd ask around.

So?

Look, if you're gonna swim naked with the dolphins, the dolphins know you're just asking for it! Who's really to blame here...

Poseidon stated through his prophet, Charlie the Tuna, that when women go into public waters for a quick dip, that all of their skin must be covered by several layers of burlap!

Men can wear whatever they want.....

That's the rule.

Poseidon said it, I believe it.

[RoboTimbo]

And since I've already confessed on another thread-- I have eaten Jesus before.

He tastes like wheat.

You should try the new "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus". All the salvation, half the angst.

[William Smith]

Why is it that god seems to find such dumb people to fight his cause?

Because this idiot is unable to provide evidence for his existence in the first place. Now he has to feed on the gullible to continue to exist. Unfortunately, evolution has made most products of human DNA very susceptible to gullibility.

[Ocelot]

You seem to be asking for two separate things. The first would be an autobiographical examination of persoanl atheistic belief. (Or lack of belief I you prefer) such as Why I am not a Muslim (http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/0879759844) by Ibn Warriq. The second would be a life history of a prominant atheist such as The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Bertrand-Russell/dp/041522862X) which since I haven't read it I can't tell you how much of its three volumes are devoted to the topic of atheism.

[Evolved Wookie]

yrreg,

A humble request; before you try to impress us all with the power of your thesaurusizing (It's a real word that I just made up; the etymology is available on the back of a nearby napkin), could you try to get a grasp upon the fundamentals of grammar and punctuation, specifically the nature of the comma and how useful it can be in simplifying the parsing of sentences.

For all that I desperately disagree with you, I get the impression that you might be an entertaining disputant, but I find it such hard work battling both the interesting word usements that you structure and your penchant for tergiversation. Have a go at making sense, rather than making an impression.

Now; I'll get back to trying to follow what sense there might be in this thread.

ETA: Or maybe I turned up very late to the party; never mind...forget I said anything.

[soylent]

When people write like that, it is a testimony that I am making headway and getting nearer to paydirt.

Only if your intention is to troll.

[Prometheus]

....

So I look up instead biography of any atheists who have attained some repute with fellow atheists, written by anyone even not any fellow atheists.


You know what?

Not only have I not found any atheist who has written an autobiography, but neither have I found any biography on any atheist written by anyone interested in the atheist whether himself a fellow atheist or not.

So, my suspicion is that no atheist in history has had the inspiration to produce an autobiography, and no one competent to write and enthusiastic about writing biographies of people has found in any atheist a subject worthy of any biography....

<snip>

Yrreg

Try Abraham Lincoln, who was an outspoken atheist among those who knew him. You shouldn't have too much trouble finding a biography or two. ;)

[CurtC]

You shouldn't have too much trouble finding a biography or two. ;)

You misunderestimate his euphonomania.