From: Martin Phipps on
On May 5, 10:03 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> Martin Phipps
>
>
>
>
>
> >>On May 5, 7:30 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> As I understand it, on Thu, 3 May 2007 20:16:21 -0600, "¥ UltraMan ¥"
>
> >>> <u...(a)man.jp> wrote:
> >>> >Meta wrote:
> >>> >> On May 3, 7:07 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...(a)jonez.net> wrote:
> >>> >>> tjab wrote:
> >>> >>>> In article <59srujF2l7n0...(a)mid.individual.net>,
> >>> >>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ <thep...(a)jonez.net> wrote:
> >>> >>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
> >>> >>>>>> Where's the proof that atheism is correct? Why do you run and
> >>> >>>>>> hide when I ask about it?
>
> >>> >>>>> I will gladly show that your pig-ignorant grotesque
> >>> >>>>> perverted superstition that you call christianity is
> >>> >>>>> utterly false.
>
> >>Hey! What did you snip here?!
>
> >>> >> Those are some pretty harsh accusations - a superstition, huh?
>
> >>> >Irrefutably.
>
> >>> Then explain why you run away when asked to prove it.
>
> >>It's been proven time and time again that your god is a mythological
> >>character no different from Zeus or Amun-Ra.
>
> Has it .. where?
>
> >>Just do google searches
> >>for "Elohim" and "Annuaki" and note the similarly between your
> >>religion and ancient Sumerian beliefs.
>
> That doesn't necessarily make it false
>
> >> Sumerian mythology inspired
> >>all of Western mythology, including Judeo-Christianity. Thus Judeo-
> >>Christianity is a set of mythological beliefs
>
> Your assertion .. that seesm to be a circulr proof.
>
> >> no different than
> >>ancient Greek or Egyptian mythological beliefs. QED
>
> That doesn't necessarily make it false-

We were required to prove that God belief can be categorized as
superstitious belief. That was what was proven.

Martin

From: Martin Phipps on
On May 6, 12:51 am, Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> In article <1178383438.823684.52...(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Phipps <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 9:41 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As I understand it, on 4 May 2007 22:56:37 -0700, Martin Phipps
>
> > > <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > >> So, Vox/Ultra/Jonez/whatever, why do you have such a
> > > >> compelling NEED to be dishonest? Why can't you be honest about
> > > >> anything, ever?
>
> > > >The pathological liar and the honest man both claim to tell the truth.
>
> > > The difference is that the pathological liar (in this case,
> > > Vox/Ultra/Jonez/whatever) is lying when he claims to the telling the
> > > truth.
>
> > > >Kent, we know you aren't an honest man. So that makes you the
> > > >pathological liar.
>
> > > Please cite one lie from me. Just one is all I ask.
> > > I have crickets on stand-by.
>
> > You've accused people of not offering you proofs of the non-existance
> > of gods.
>
> If someone makes that claim, is it unreasonable to ask them for proof?

If somebody provides proof, is it reasonable to claim that they
haven't? Kent may stubbornly refuse to accept what people have said
but that's not the same as them not having responded.

> > You've accused people of avoiding your questions.
>
> I've seen Kent do this frequently - in cases where people (usually
> Vox/Jonez who is notorious for doing so) avoid his questions.

That may be true in other threads but here he's the one who has
avoided the hard questions. Say, Kent, is the old testament the word
of God or not? If not then isn't the entire Christian religion on
shakey ground?

> > You've
> > claimed that agnostics are not atheists (when they do clearly lack
> > belief in any gods).
>
> Agnosticism and atheism are different, so there can be an argument that
> they are different.

Agnostics are a subset of atheists in the sense that, like other
atheists, they lack belief in gods.

> > You've argued that quotes from the Bible have
> > nothing to do with Christianity and that people are presenting "lies"
> > when they quote the Bible and use them against you. The real question
> > is when have you ever told the truth? I honestly haven't seen a
> > single example yet of you telling the truth.
>
> Then you either selectively read his posts or are lying yourself. Kent
> and I don't agree on much, but I can't recall him every deliberately
> lying.

So he accidentally repeatedly says things that we all know are not
true?

Martin

From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on
Kent Wills wrote:
> As I understand it, on Thu, 03 May 2007 19:03:25 -0700, "Fred G.
> Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote:
>
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>> "Kent Wills" <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hatk331kpodcvs6mel0a1gmeklc6rq8qo8(a)4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 03:14:47 +1000, "Jeckyl"
>>>> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will gladly show that your pig-ignorant grotesque
>>>>>>>> perverted superstition that you call christianity is
>>>>>>>> utterly false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please present this proof.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been asking for proof that atheism is correct for a very
>>>> long time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Easy ..
>>>
>>> The theist position is to know that god exists
>>> The atheist position is to not know that god exists
>>> There is no proof that god exists
>>> We cannot conclude that god exists or does not exist
>>> Gods existance is unknown
>>> The atheist position is correct
>>>
>>>
>> That's not a proof.
>
> It's a belief. Nothing more.

Main Entry: atheism
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: disbelief
Synonyms: Pyrrhonism, agnosticism, disbelief, doubt, free thinking,
godlessness, heathenism, heresy, iconoclasm, impiety, infidelity, irreligion,
irreverence, nihilism, nonbelief, paganism, scepticism, skepticism, unbelief
Antonyms: belief, godliness, piety, religion
Source: Roget's New MillenniumT Thesaurus


From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2007 08:37:07 -0500, Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, on Fri, 04 May 2007 19:12:30 -0400, Christopher
>> A.Lee <calee(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:06:28 -0500, Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 10:37:06 +1000, "Jeckyl"
>>>> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Kent Wills" <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hatk331kpodcvs6mel0a1gmeklc6rq8qo8(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 03:14:47 +1000, "Jeckyl"
>>>>>> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I will gladly show that your pig-ignorant grotesque
>>>>>>>>>> perverted superstition that you call christianity is
>>>>>>>>>> utterly false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please present this proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been asking for proof that atheism is correct for a very
>>>>>> long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy ..
>>>>>
>>>>> The theist position is to know that god exists
>>>>
>>>> To claim to KNOW is to claim to have proof. No sane person
>>>> would claim to KNOW there is a god.
>>>> I do believe, but freely admit I can't prove that God exists.
>>>
>>> Then you're an agnostic theist.
>>
>> If so, everyone who believes in a deity would fall under the
>> term agnostic theist, since there is no way to prove any deity
>> exists.
>
> The honest ones say that.
>
> The dishonest ones tell atheists we're really agnostic because there
> is no way to prove they don't - even though we can for the logically
> impossible ones.
>
> Even though we haven't got anything to be agnostic about.
>
> It expands the word into meaninglessness and applies equally to them.
>
>>>>> The atheist position is to not know that god exists
>>>>
>>>> That's an agnostic's position.
>>>
>>> No, because it's not even part of their world view.
>>
>> Agnostics don't know if there is or is not a god.
>
> Why don't they say exactly the same thing about all the other beliefs
> they don't have?

Because they are intellectual cowards.



>
>>>
>>>>> There is no proof that god exists
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. It's a belief.
>>>
>>> Somebody else's belief. The demands for proof are when they beg the
>>> question by rudely and stupidly talking about it to people outside
>>> their religion. Basically "put up or shut up". But they have neither
>>> the integrity nor the courtesy to do either.
>>
>> I freely admit I can't prove the existence of God. I can
>> point to aspects of my life that support the idea that God does
>> exist, but it's not PROOF.
>
> Then you shouldn't beg the question to people who don't believe what
> you do.
>
> It's as simple as that.
>
>>>
>>>>> We cannot conclude that god exists or does not exist
>>>>> Gods existance is unknown
>>>>> The atheist position is correct
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not the atheist position. You've done a GREAT job of
>>>> explaining the agnostic position.
>>>
>>> Only in the ignorant imagination of people who don't know what an
>>> atheist is.
>>
>> Whereas ignorance is nothing more than a lack of knowledge.
>> Everyone is ignorant. Your attempt to insult me has failed.
>
> What "attempt to insult" you?
>
> But it's more than that. Very few theists can accept correction when
> they get atheists wrong. Far too many lecture us on what it "really"
> means to us to be atheist, citing cherry-picked definitions from
> dictionaries that also carry more accurate ones.
>
> They don't seem to understand just how nasty this is.
>
> The root of the problem is that they filter what they are told,
> through religion-tinted glasses and attempt to describe us from
> presumptions that only apply inside their religion when we're outside
> it.


From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on
Martin Phipps wrote:
> On May 5, 9:50 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> As I understand it, on Fri, 04 May 2007 23:14:29 -0700, "Fred G.
>>
>> Mackey" <nos...(a)dont.spam> wrote:
>>> � Shanghai Lil � wrote:
>>
>>>> Gods do not exist. Not a "belief", it's a fact.
>>
>>> So you're an atheist - that's cool with me - don't feel ashamed
>>> about it, just don't try to distort facts and call others atheists
>>> who are not. But of course such protests help prove my point that
>>> you are just as religious as all the others who DO believe in
>>> God(s).
>>
>> He does believe. He hates the Christian God too much not to
>> believe He doesn't exist.
>
> How can anyone hate something that doesn't exist?

It's the perverse repugnant christians themselves like Kent who are worthy of
the contempt and disdain.