There is outrage in Kathmandu after the Nepal Supreme Court ruled that the Kumari has rights. The country has long taken a pre-pubescent girl that declared her a “living goddess” – - a nice status but it comes with a denial of school and other basic rights like freedom of movement. The ruling means the the current Kumari, nine-year-old Preeti Shakya, can be freed from a virtual ornate prison in the palace.
The reform comes on the heels of the return to democracy and elimination of the Nepali Hindu monarchy. The Kumari was used to reinforce the legitimacy of the 240-year-old monarchy.
The ruling could signal the beginning of the end of the tradition. Officials are livid at the ruling. ajan Maharajan, the vice president of the committee that looks after the Kumari and her palace. insists” “This is not good news. In any case, she is a goddess so how can court rulings apply?” He insists that the living God receives three hours of schooling a day at the palace and is not a prisoner. As the video shows below, however, the Kumari is not allowed to speak to anyone.
While the Kumari is a living princess, she loses that status when she starts menstruating — then a new Kumari is selected. The tradition obviously repels many feminists and Westerners.
For a video of the Kumari, click here.
For the full story, click here.
“The Kumari is chosen as a three or four-year-old girl from a Buddhist caste, and remains in the position until she starts menstruating, when the process to choose a new goddess begins anew.”
———————————————————————
If she’s a goddess why does it matter if a goddess mensturates? People make up all kinds of rules and attribute them to the “laws of heaven”. If the laws of heaven hurt people they should not be obeyed. Why does it matter what a god or goddess tells people to do? We have brains, we should use them. “Do no harm” is a good place to start.
Maybe Fat Woodtick Olbermann and his trusted sidekick J. Turley could actually do something about these travesty’s instead of just giving them lip service.
It seemes bizarre to see the Democratic party PRAYING (to what God I don’t know, maybe the abortion GOD) at it’s convention. For the last 20 years the Democrats intentionally kicked any mention of GOD out of their convention; then they realized 80% or more of Americans believe and trust in God, so now they are pandering to them. Prettty soon we will see them come up with a tax break for GOD.
PS. Didn’t Obama tell us lobbyists money was not being tolerated? Seems 50 million in corporate donations have fund the DNC convention, all raised by crooked people connected to the DNC.
Big parties tonight in Denver! Carl Levin, Waxler, all the big time liberals going to FREE PARTIES where the food and hookers flow!
Jill,
That Buddha was one crazy dude.
PS. Didn’t Obama tell us lobbyists money was not being tolerated?
Odd.
I wasn’t aware Barack Obama was the head of the DNC.
Someone better tell Dean.
Russ said…
Big parties tonight in Denver! Carl Levin, Waxler, all the big time liberals going to FREE PARTIES where the food and hookers flow!
Really? The hookers “flow”?
I wasn’t aware the RNC was invited.
CMM,
You are right to wonder if the RNC is in town. Besides, there are no hookers left in Denver because they are already on the road to Minnesota. Besides, what do the Republicans have against hookers? Aren’t they just small businesses that are creating jobs for Bush’s vibrant economy?
Hell, wasn’t it Vitter that used his campaign funds to defend himself because of his “love” for hookers?
Funny then that Russ would want to bring up hookers.
CMM,
You are correct. And the Republicans are the ones always yelling about Family Values and then we get the Vitter hooker stories and the bathroom stories and the McCain adultery stories. And then they always ask for forgiveness!
rafflaw: you want scandals? you liberals put a man on the stage tonight, ted kennedy, that sat drunk on a bridge watching a young woman, Mary Joe Kopechnik, drown in his car in 6 feet of water. then he walked to town to his hotel, went to bed, and in the morning the first person he called was his lawyer.
you cheered this man, you cried for this man, and America knows there were NO tears for the kopechnik family decades ago.
rafflaw: when are the Obama’s going to stop using their children as props in their venture for political power? this is about the 4th time they have put their children in front of America for political gain. lest you don’t know what i am talking about; tonight after Michelle my bell spoke they rushed the two children up on stage for theatrics with their dad who was on camera in another state. they managed to gush the “where are you” and the “we love you daddy” lines as practiced….
shame.
russ
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:12 pm
rafflaw: you want scandals?
No.
I think you guys have provided us with enough scandals for one year.
russ
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:32 pm
rafflaw: when are the Obama’s going to stop using their children as props in their venture for political power?
Presidential candidates have always campaigned with their families. Its nothing new.
I think the problem here is jealousy, as republicans have a difficult time producing children as cute and intelligent as the Obama’s have.
cro magnum boy: Name a scandal that is supported by the facts. Oh ya, Edwards love child. A man makes it to be considered a nominee for the President of the United States while having an affair as his wife is dying of cancer. Now lets go down Barry Obama’s scandals should we, or do you prefer not to have me list them. Then let’s move on to Biden’s scandels including his millionaire sons getting paid hudnreds of thousands of dollars for lobbying companies his old man control appropriations to.
rafflaw
1, August 25, 2008 at 10:31 pm
And the Republicans are the ones always yelling about Family Values and then we get the Vitter hooker stories and the bathroom stories and the McCain adultery stories. And then they always ask for forgiveness!
Yea, and they always blubber when they do it.
Remember Swaggart? That festering bag of hot air? Remember him, blubbering like a jilted prom queen?
Or Jim Bakker? Remember him blubbering on the 700 club about all the fornicating he was doing? lol … hell he was fornicating all over the place, lmao.
Now Ted Haggard.. Larry Craig. all cry babies when they get popped.
Pious Hypocrisy.
It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
crow magnum boy: Yes, those fallen Christian leaders are almost as bad as ……….Muhammed, the so called prophet, eh? Imagine a man so fiendish as to convince a billion people that he alone had a conversation with God and God trusted him alone to write down what God told him…maybe it was Satan fooling this foolish old man into thinking he was having a discussion with God…
russ
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:47 pm
cro magnum boy: Name a scandal that is supported by the facts.
Cro magnum boy? Wow. Good one Russ.
You think that one up all by yourself or did you have help?
As for scandals that are supported by the facts, I just named several. And have plenty more where that came from.
In fact, you guys literally provide us with a cornucopia of scandals every month.
Difference is, we’re not the ones waving the banner of chastity in the faces of Americans as we sell ourselves. You are.
Like I said pal, that pious hypocrisy.
It’ll get ya everytime.
russ
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Imagine a man so fiendish as to convince a billion people that he alone had a conversation with God and God trusted him alone to write down what God told him…maybe it was Satan fooling this foolish old man into thinking he was having a discussion with God
Yea… imagine.
Like Moses?
CMM,
don’t bother responding to Russ. He ignores Republican scandals and forgets about how many times Newt Gingrich was married and how he had his wife sign divorce papers while she was in the hospital. He forgets about Giuliani announcing his divorce filing on the news before telling his wife.(isn’t his named still being mentioned as a possible VP?) He forgets that McCain committed adultery and lied about it in his book. He forgets that McCain’s wife lied about getting their adopted daughter from Mother Teresa! You are correct, Republican hypocrisy is the “gift tha keeps on giving”.
Well I said pious hypocrisy but republican hypocrisy works too.
After all, these days the words are interchangable.
cro magnum boy: All moses came away with was a lousy 10 commandments and not one of them telling christians to get vicious with their opposition.
muhammed the phony came down with a whole darn book he says God told him to write filled with all kinds of funny stuff about killing those that don’t believe muhammed.
stranger stuff was never made up by a person, leastways that caused so much damage, hurt, pain, suffering, and death in the world.
rafflaw, funny how most of those “republican” scandals seem to not have any facts behind them, whereas a baby that looks like John Edwards is pretty concret as well as a drowned young lady in the back seat of drunken ted kennedy’s car.
Russ,
Use the old Google feature and you will see that all of those scandals are true. Where have you been hiding the last several years? Not only are those true, they were just a sampling, so just keep living in your imaginary world and you won’t overtax your brain.
russ
1, August 26, 2008 at 12:07 am
cro magnum boy: All moses came away with was a lousy 10 commandments and not one of them telling christians to get vicious with their opposition
Thank you russ for this fine example of neoconservatives lack of knowledge of anything biblical.
See, Moses came away with a little more than the 10 commandments.
Also, since Christ hadn’t even been born at the time of Moses, there were no “Christians” for him to instruct to be vicious with their “opposition”.
However he did lead armies into battle, and considering his victories I can assume he did encourage his followers to be somewhat “vicious” with the opposition.
He also produced the Torah which he received from the hand of God, which makes up the bulk of the scriptures your rabid bloviating “evangelical christians” like to preach from.
Not to mention the “Law of Moses”, which encompassed much, much more than the “10 Commandments”, which you only know about because Cecil B Demile decided to make a movie about them.
Clearly you are like the other evangelical christians I meet in these blogs, not at all educated in scriptures you profess to believe in.
russ
1, August 26, 2008 at 12:09 am
, whereas a baby that looks like John Edwards is pretty concret as well as a drowned young lady in the back seat of drunken ted kennedy’s car.
So your focus is on a guy who holds no sort of public office and an incident that happened so longer ago you likely weren’t even born?
Must be rough.
We only have to as far back as this year.
russ said
muhammed the phony came down with a whole darn book he says God told him to write filled with all kinds of funny stuff about killing those that don’t believe muhammed.
stranger stuff was never made up by a person, leastways that caused so much damage, hurt, pain, suffering, and death in the world
Really?
Then what’s this?
—
And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.
And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
Deuteronomy 3:2-4
—
I think the problem here is those “Christian Comic’s” you guys are reading now.
They only tell you the parts of the bible they want you to hear, and make you think you’re actually learning something.
As I was saying Josh, A-THEISM is a Doctrine, that first emerged around the 5th Century CE.
Changing the meaning of the word to whatever you want, is what children do when they get proven wrong on something, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the word for everyone else. Everyone “literate” that is.
A-THEISM refers to a specific thing.
Not some imaginary flowery concept you concocted for the purpose of your arguent.
I haven’t changed the meaning of the word. By whatever definition you use it could still exists prior to belief in God.
True, it coouldn’texist prior to idering God as an option, but that is all that is required, not belief.
err, considering… stupid wireless keyboard
I offered my story only as a possible alternate theory. One that must be disproved in order to know your claim.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:43 am
I haven’t changed the meaning of the word. By whatever definition you use it could still exists prior to belief in God
No Josh. It couldn’t.
First, someone would have to define a god, for their to be a DOCTRINE that denies him.
Second, we are talking about a SPECIFIC THING.
A-THESIM.
A-THEISM began around the 5th Century BCE.
You can’t just invent facts.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
I offered my story only as a possible alternate theory. One that must be disproved in order to know your claim
No, your “story” doesn’t even need to be addressed.
It’s baby talk.
A-THESIM is a THING Josh.
Not some esoteric concept you can just attribute to whatever fairy tale you choose to dream up.
By your logic, I can say anything equals anything.
It’s baby talk. Nothing more.
Why must someone define a god? And why does the definition of a god necissarily involve belief in a god?
I’m not inventing facts. In order to know something you must disprove all alternate theories. My point is that you can not know because you can not discard the opposing possibilities in this regard.
You apparently are not a student, or scholar I take it?
You obviously are not well versed in Classic Antiquity, or even proper use of the English language.
A-THEISM, Josh, is a “thing”. A thing that is documented. Well documented.
We know when the first flights took place, from a fixed wing Air Craft. The wright brothers being generally accepted as the first “powered flight”.
Some might argue to earlier ones, but we can safely say, because we read books and such, that no powered flight of a fixed wing aircraft existed prior to the invention of the combustion engine.
But using your logic, your “childs logic”, I could easily say “nuh uh”. Some one may have done it, and landed in a Tarpit, and sunk into the earth….50,000 years ago…. you don’t know!!!
See Josh?
You can’t prove that is wrong. Nor should you need to.
Because it’s baby talk, and we’re not babies.
It is not, my story is the entire point. If it can not be known that my story is false, then it can not be known that your statements are fact. That simple. I didn’t post the story because I believed it. That would just be stupid. I am honest. I do not know. I do not know because I can not know. I can not know because the evidence doesn’t exist (no matter how well read you are). And because neither belief is a prerequisite for the other.
That is the logical train of thought that you have yet to break.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:49 am
Why must someone define a god? And why does the definition of a god necissarily involve belief in a god?
Lol. Well first, if no one “defines” a god, there would be no concept of one to “DISBELIEVE” in.
And if someone defined a god, there would by defintion of what a god is, needs to be someone, somewhere, who believes in it.
Otherwise you’d not be defining a god, but merely telling someone a story, presented as a fairy tale.
A childs tale.
Not that some don’t see the idea of a god being a fairy tale anyway, but none theless, you are purporting that someone is presenting the knowledge as a lie, then denouncing it.
Do you see the idiocy of that concept?
If they never believed in a god, then the concept of “disbelief” in one, would not exist.
There would be nothing to “disbelieve in”.
You do not have to believe in a god in order to define one. Another logical fallacy.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:52 am
It is not, my story is the entire point. If it can not be known that my story is false, then it can not be known that your statements are fact.
More baby talk.
Once more Joshy… A-THEISM is a DOCTRINE that DENIES the existence of a god.
A-THEISM is an “ISM”, not a “thought pattern of an imaginary human”.
A-THEISM, is well documented in Classic Antiquity, and in ancient Hindusim.
A-THESIM is a word, with a defintion in both Greek, and the English language.
A-THESIM, is not a word for you to make into whatever you want it to be.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:56 am
You do not have to believe in a god in order to define one. Another logical fallacy
Once again, in order for a god to have been defined as anything other than FAIRY TALES, someone would have to first BELIEVE IT.
If NO ONE BELIEVED IT, then there would be NOTHING TO DISBELIEVE IN.
In fact the first definition of a god would necissarily have come from someone who was not yet a believer. It may have evolved after the person believed, but you can not believe in a god before you define him. So not only is it a logical fallacy, it is downright wrong.
“in order for a god to have been defined as anything other than FAIRY TALES, someone would have to first BELIEVE IT.”
No. Someone would have to CONSIDER IT.
If I define something to you, and tell you it is “FALSE”, and then there is no room for you to “DISBELIEVE A FALSE THING”.
You’ve already been told it’s false.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:00 am
No. Someone would have to CONSIDER IT
LOL, CONSIDER “WHAT”?
If I present it to you as FALSE, what exactly are you considering?
Am I right, or do you believe that the first believers believed in a god before they defined him?
If I sit down, define to you a god while simultaneously telling you it is false information, there is no place left to go.
There is no room for “disbelief”, as there was never anything believed.
All they would have to consider is whether or not another sentient being created everything before them.
Who said simultaneous?
Of course you have to define god first. I was wrong to question that. But you are still wrong to suggest you must believe first.
This is baby talk Josh.
Childs arguments.
A-THEISM is what we are talking about.
You are now claiming, that the history books on Classic Greek Antiquity and the orgins of Hinduism, are wrong, and you, and your childs theory, are right.
History shows us when A-THEISM emerged.
Just like History shows us, when DEMOCRACIES emerged.
Or when the Steam Engine emerged.
Or when Christianity emerged.
Or when English emerged.
Or when…..
You can play all the baby word games you want, but the fact is, A-THEISM emerged around the 5th Century, BCE.
That my friend is what you’ll learn in school.
What you are teaching here tonight, is what you’ll learn in Kindergarten.
From the other kids.
Not at all. You simply won’t be honest. I am not suggesting anything other than people could have been atheists before they were theists. If such an event occured there would assuredly be no evidence of such. The end. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. It can not be proven either way. Therefore an honest man would not state anything regarding it as fact.
Josh babbled;
All they would have to consider is whether or not another sentient being created everything before them
Whether or not someone considered that concept is not in question here.
Our discussion, is on A-THEISM.
Like most children, you now try to move the goal posts to whatever you want the discussion to be on. What some man or woman thought a million years ago is not a subject of scientific thought in abscence of records, artifacts or any evidence whatsoever.
Our schools, universties, colleges, libraries, etc, show us when A-THEISM began.
Your childs theories aside.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:08 am
Not at all. You simply won’t be honest. I am not suggesting anything other than people could have been atheists before they were theists.
I am being 100 percent honest Josh. You however, are spouting babytalk.
And you are wrong.
A-THESIM began around the 5th Century.
There were THEISTS prior to that.
And in order for their to be a DOCTRINE that DENIED BELIEF in something, there would first need by defintion, to be a belief in that thing.
The term A-THEISM, is the opposite of THEISM.
Hence without THEISM, there could not be A-THEISM.
And that my illiterate friend, is a concept even a child could understand.
All that is required to be an atheist is to decide that god does not exist. It was possible to do this prior to the belief that god did exist. Not prior to the idea, but certainly prior to the belief.
And our colleges and books and scholars do not show us when atheism was created. You couldn’t show me one conclusive piece of evidence. At est they are guesses at things that occurred long ago.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
All that is required to be an atheist is to decide that god does not exist.
If no one ever purported the concept of a god existing, then there would be no concept of god, to deny.
Yes, the word A-THEISM couldn’t be here without the word THEISM first. But clearly both beliefs existed before the words were coined so they mean nothing in conideration of the chronology of the beliefs. Another logical fallacy.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
And our colleges and books and scholars do not show us when atheism was created
Perhaps the ones in you attend. The ones for the “special children”.
For the rest of us, Classic Greek Antiquity and Diagoras, are common fare.
not true, if someone speculated a god existed then there is a concept to deny. There need not be the belief.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:18 am
Yes, the word A-THEISM couldn’t be here without the word THEISM first.
But clearly both beliefs existed before the words were coined so they mean nothing in conideration of the chronology of the beliefs. Another logical fallacy
Well, you got the first part down. Now lets help your brain along with the second part.
We are talking about A-THEISM.
Not some imaginary belief system that is particular to some imaginary individual.
We are also not talking about some elusive concept that you can label anything you want.
We are talking about the English word, A-THEISM, derived from the greek.
An A-THEISM, you will find if you ever get the chance to attend a real school, emerged in the 5th Century BCE.
Thats fact.
Look it up.
Apparently the schools for special children I atended taught logical analysis, not pedantic pontification.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:19 am
not true, if someone speculated a god existed then there is a concept to deny. There need not be the belief.
You just cannot get past the baby talk, can you?
One more time Joshy.,
In order for their to be a concept of god to deny, there would first have to be one to purport.
If no one purported it, but merely hypothosized, and then immediately dismissed it, then there was never a concept of a god that materialized to the point of being able to “DISBELIEVE” in.
People make up stuff all the time.
But there are not DOCTRINES invented to deny those things if no one ever believed them in the first place.
And A-THEISM, is a DOCTRINE, by defintion.
See, the real problem here is like I said last night.
Too many people claiming to be A-THEISTS, who haven’t a clue what the word means.
No, clearly anyone existing before the term atheism was coined who believed that god did not exist could correctly be described as an atheist sir.
Nice try.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:23 am
Apparently the schools for special children I atended taught logical analysis, not pedantic pontification
Well they obviously skipped over the logical theories of Greek Antiquity. And characters like Plato, and Diagoras.
Otherwise, you’d know when, and what A-THEISM was.
The belief obviously existed before the term. Therefore the term can accurately be used to describe the same belief before the terms existance. So, your argument holds no water.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:25 am
No, clearly anyone existing before the term atheism was coined who believed that god did not exist could correctly be described as an atheist sir
No, “son”.
A-THEISM, is a DOCTRINE. A SYSTEM OF BELIEF.
It began, as anyone with a college education will tell you, in the 5th Century, BCE.
Clearly , you do not know what the word means.
Secondly, if there was NO BELIEF in a god or gods, then there would be NO SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, no DOCTRINE, to DENY THEM.
You here in your posts have posted three logical fallacies. One of which not only was necissarily true, but was by its very nature untrue, and you are questioning my logic?
Clearly the problem is your ignorance of the word A-THEIST.
You have demonstrated you don’t know what it means. Where it began. Or who the central players in it were.
wasn’t, stupid keyboard…
As I said, the problem is people calling themselves A-THEISTS who haven’t a clue what the word means.
I do know what it means, and it doesn’t matter where it began. It clearly describes something that existed prior to its conception.
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Actually CroMM,
I have a simple question and I would like you to answer it honestly. Could I have been an atheist before the word atheism was coined?
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:30 am
I do know what it means, and it doesn’t matter where it began. It clearly describes something that existed prior to its conception
Lol, Josh, you strain not only logic, but sanity.
Clearly you don’t care where it began, because you didn’t KNOW where it began.
Now you do.
Assuming I was very very old at any rate.
Secondly, in order for you to understand how stupid your babies theory is, you need to take another look at the defintion of the word.
Then, you can argue the dictionary like the rest of the illiterate.
Where the word began has no bearring on the belief.
Answer my question please.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:32 am
Actually CroMM,
I have a simple question and I would like you to answer it honestly. Could I have been an atheist before the word atheism was coined?
There could not have been an “A-THEIST”.
There could have been someone who disbelieved in a god, a specific god or gods, but they would not be called an A-THEIST.
Just like there couldn’t be a CHRISTIAN, before the birth of Christ.
Someone could have demonstrated CHRISTIAN MANNERISMS, or VALUES, but they would not have been a CHRISTIAN.
Because CHRISTIANITY had not yet emerged.
We are not talking about esoteric “what ifs”.
We are not talking about fiary tales and baby’s stories.
We are talkinng about the DOCTRINE of A-THEISM.
A Doctrine, which emerged, in the 5th Century BCE.
And if someone disbelieved in a god, or gods, someone FIRST would have to have CONCEPTUALIZED that god or gods, prior to disbelieving in them.
You cannot DISBELIEVE in that which was never purported to be real in the first place.
Ah, you are so freaking stupid. I gave you so much more credit than that. I’m arguing the idea and you’re arguing the term. Of course you wouldn’t have been called an atheist, but you still would have been one. You knew what I meant all along and you still argued symantics. What an idiotic and childish thing to do. Ignore the point by arguing symantics. What everyone said about you is right. Good night sir. And go to bed. I’m done with you.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus.
That statement however, would not mean anything, if no one ever professed to anyone that Santa Claus was real.
To say I don’t believe in Bugs Bunny, is to say nothing at all.
Because no one ever believed in Bugs Bunny in the first place.
It’s a cartoon, and was never presented otherwise.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:39 am
Ah, you are so freaking stupid.
I am stupid, yet you’re the one who doesn’t by his own admission, know a thing about classical Greek Antiquity.
I am stupid, yet you’re the one who doesn’t even know the meaning, of the word A-THEIST.
I am stupid, yet you’re the one arguing that someone could form a doctrine of disbelief in something that no one has yet ever purported as real.
yea… josh… I’m the stupid one.
I’m doonsir. You aremonstrably wrong, but even when demonntrated you ignore the point by rguing ymantics. Good night.
Josh the Wise said…
Of course you wouldn’t have been called an atheist, but you still would have been one.
No, you couldn’t be an A-THEIST if THEISM didn’t exist.
Without the concept of a belief in a god, there is no concept to disbelieve in one.
Without THEISM, there is no A-THEISM.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:42 am
I’m doonsir. You aremonstrably wrong, but even when demonntrated you ignore the point by rguing ymantics. Good night
Thats a lot of typos Josh. We all make em, but that’s like one long typo.
I assume the drugs and booze are kicking in?
Wordsworth said…
you ignore the point by rguing ymantics
I assume you meant to say arguing semantics, right?
Funny.
I’m the one referring to Classical Greek Antiquity, the sources of A-THEISM, Hinduism, Anthropological evidence, and the presenece of belief systems as taught in our Universities and Colleges.
And you are the one making up your own defintions of the word A-THEISM, and inventing imaginary stories of impossible scenarios to try and sell whatever refutatiuon of my position that you are trying to sell.
And yet, you call me the one playing “semantics”?
If by “semantics” you mean using the correct terminologies, and correct english, and the DICTIONARY, then sure.
I’m very semantical.
See Josh, the problem I have with A-THEISM is the same problem I have with THEISM.
Get enough people together in a room, let them think they’ve got some answers to questions that no one has yet answered, and next thing you know they’re clowning around in government.
Next thing you know, we end up with things like The Suppression of Heresy, The Inquisitions, The Crusades, and the less obvious but nonetheless destructive results of the mingling of church and state.
Thats why I think, “BELIEF SYSTEMS” are a bad thing.
And A-THEISM, like THEISM, is a belief system.
And one rapidly gaining footholds throughout the new “progressive movement”. A fact evident by the number of bloggers in progressive blogs professing A-THEISM without understanding what the word really means.
And if A-THEISM replaces THEISM as the new Belief System that influences our government, it is not at all improbable that THEISTS may become the subject of discrimination and or persecution, much like A-THEISTS have been.
And we don’t need more of that.
What we need now, is a few calm heads, who don’t need belief systems to correlate their understanding of the universe, and who are capable of simply saying, “gee, I don’t know“.
Instead of what we’ve got, which is a bunch of self professed erudite’s claiming to be A-THEISTS, who like you, don’t even know what the word means.
—-
Atheism
(AY-thee-iz-uhm) Denial that there is a God. 1
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2002
—-
atheism
noun [U]
the belief that God does not exist
Cambridge Dictionary of American English © Cambridge University Press 2008.
—-
Atheism
A”the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
—-
atheism
noun
Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Disbelief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Etymology: athéisme, from athée “atheist” < (polytonic, ) (atheós) “godless” < (polytonic, á-) a-Prefix_5, (a-) “without”, + (theos) “deity, god”.
AllWords Dictionary.Com\Wiktionary.org
—-
atheism
A’THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Dictionary , 1828 edition
—-
Atheism
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1912 edition
—-
atheism ['ei?iiz?m] noun
the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006
—-
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
——
atheism
(´th-z´´m) (KEY) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07
—-
ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.
Encyclopedia Britannica
—-
a-the-ism
Pronunciation e thi ih zEm
Definition 1. the belief that there is no God.
Wordsmyth.com ©2002 Wordsmyth
—-
atheism
the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n.
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc
—-
atheism
n atheism [ˈeiθiizəm]
the belief that there is no God.
Password English Learner’s Dictionary © 1986-2008
—-
a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
—-
atheism [aith-ee-iz-zum]
Noun
the belief that there is no God [Greek a- without + theos god]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
—-