Turning around in neighbor's driveway
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Would Consumer Reports say this is a shady practice?
Next: Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on 5 May 2007 14:56 Jeckyl wrote: > "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >> Jeckyl wrote: >>>>> who not only have a lack of theism (ie no belief in gods) but >>>>> also a belief that gods to not exists. >>>> Yep - atheists have a belief that gods do not exist. >>> >>> Some atheists have a belief that gods do not exist. >> >> Nope. A-theism = Lack of Belief. > > Sorry .. you're mistaken Au contrair, pierre. [French ath�isme, from ath�e, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhes- in Indo-European roots.] > > A-theism = lack of theistic belief = lack of believe in god(s) > > That is not incompatible with believing there is no god, which is what > strong/radical atheists belief. So in your world, believing is not incompatible with disbelieving, eh? You've made them synonyms instead of antonyms. > > It is not REQUIRED for an atheist to belief Not only isn't it "required", the very definiton of atheist is that they DO NOT BELIEVE, got it? >that gods do not exists > .. but only to not believe that they do Your English language comprehension is lacking. > > Atheism does not in any way mean a total lack of any belief (as you > imply) .. only lack of belief in god. Pay attention, it's quite simple - Theism is the noun A-theism it the negation of that noun per English language construction. Atheism it the *antonym* of Theism. Q.E.D.
From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on 5 May 2007 14:59 Martin Phipps wrote: >> "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...(a)dont.spam> wrote in >> messagenews:NNWdnZVSSbx6gqHbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> >>> Jeckyl wrote: >> >>>>> That's not the atheist position. You've done a GREAT job of >>>>> explaining the agnostic position. >> >>>> Which is also the atheist position .. you are confusing atheist >>>> with the subset "strong-atheist", >> >>> That's a crock - an atheist is an atheist. >>> They BELIEVE there is no god of any kind. >>> Your pleas only help prove my point that it IS a religion. > > He isn't pleading. He's educating you. > > I am a teacher by profession. I am strongly motivated to teach math, > for instance. Does that make math a religion? Is the Pythagorean > theorem now a doctrine that you need faith to believe? > > Religion requires faith and things that require faith are patently > untrue: something which is demonstrately true by evidence and reason > would not require faith to be believed. > > Atheism does not require faith: that there is no evidence that any > gods exist is just simply a statement of fact. (If the tenets of any > religion could be proven to be true through evidence and reason then > they would no longer be beliefs requiring faith.) Atheism simply > involves refusing to believe in things for which no evidence exists. > Get over it. The shrinks call it cognitive dissonance ... > > Martin
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 15:01 As I understand it, on 5 May 2007 09:43:58 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(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. Accurately so. >You've accused people of avoiding your questions. Accurately so. >You've >claimed that agnostics are not atheists Accurately so. >(when they do clearly lack belief in any gods). They are honest enough to admit a deity or 20 could exist. They just don't have the evidence. >You've argued that quotes from the Bible have >nothing to do with Christianity Liar. >and that people are presenting "lies" With Jonez, it will be lies. He's unable to be honest. >when they quote the Bible and use them against you. The real question >is when have you ever told the truth? All the time. >I honestly haven't seen a >single example yet of you telling the truth. > Because you can't bring yourself to admit it. It's OK, really. -- Kent Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 15:04 As I understand it, on Sat, 05 May 2007 16:51:46 GMT, Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: >In article <1178383438.823684.52500(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(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? Must be. > >> 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. > He always runs away, then lies and claims he didn't. Odd that Google, a disinterested third-party archive, doesn't agree with him. >> 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. Not only can be, but there is a difference. > >> 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. I do get this wrong. When pointed out, or when I catch it, I accept it. This really bugs vox/jonez/whatever, since it means I'm honest. I have an ability he doesn't. I don't know enough of Martin to know what his motivation might be. -- Kent Take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you've never been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of happiness you'll never get back
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 15:09
As I understand it, on 5 May 2007 10:24:59 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [...] >> >> > > >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. I've never claimed they haven't responded. Please cite where I claim they haven't responded when they did. I double dog dare ya. > >> > 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? Yes. >If not then isn't the entire Christian religion on >shakey ground? The Christian religion is New Testament. The OT shouldn't be ignored, since it was the foundation that lead to Christianity (Jesus was/is Jewish for anyone who somehow didn't know). > >> > 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. Agnostics accept that deities are possible. They simply state they don't know. An atheist believes there is no possibility of any 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? When have I done this? Please point it out, using Google links so that accuracy and context can be checked. If the comments are more than six days old, use one of the archives that don't honor the no archive request. -- Kent Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon. |