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 15:08 Kent Wills wrote: > As I understand it, on 4 May 2007 22:54:34 -0700, Martin Phipps > <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 5, 7:42 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Do TRY and be honest. This will be VERY difficult for you, >>> I'm sure. But try. With each occurrence of honesty, you'll find it >>> easier and easier. Soon it will be very natural. >> >> How would you know? >> > > I know more about psychology than the average person on the > street. It comes from a combination of being married to a > Psychologist and reading her books when my insomnia kicks in. And what does your psychologist wife say about your god/religious delusions, eh Kent? Is she deluded too?
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 15:10 As I understand it, on 5 May 2007 09:45:47 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 5, 9:42 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> As I understand it, on 4 May 2007 22:54:34 -0700, Martin Phipps >> >> <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On May 5, 7:42 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Do TRY and be honest. This will be VERY difficult for you, >> >> I'm sure. But try. With each occurrence of honesty, you'll find it >> >> easier and easier. Soon it will be very natural. >> >> >How would you know? >> >> I know more about psychology than the average person on the >> street. It comes from a combination of being married to a >> Psychologist and reading her books when my insomnia kicks in. > >You may have read about how it becomes easier to tell the truth when >you practice telling the truth but so far you've only demonstrated >that it becomes easier to tell lies when you practice telling lies. > Maybe you think I'm vox/jonez/whatever. I'm not. -- (��.�(�*�.� �.�*�)�.��) �.��KENT��.� (�.��(�.��* *��.�)��.�)
From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on 5 May 2007 15:11 Larry 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? So where's their "proof" of their grotesque perverted superstition? > >> 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. I'm right here. Where's Kent? > >> 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. > >> 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. Depends on what the definition of "lying" is, eh Larry?
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 15:14 [snips for brevity] >>> >>>Agnostics are atheists, not all atheits are agnostic though >> >> Agnostics simply state they don't know. > >Yes (due to lack of evidence), As good a reason as any. > and that makes them atheist because they do >not belief god exists. Yet they state they aren't atheists, since an atheist believes it's impossible for there to be any gods. And agnostic is willing to accept that there may be one or more gods. > >>>>>There is no proof that god exists >>>> Exactly. It's a belief. >>>Mor particularly, it is a belief without evidence / proof >> If there was proof, they wouldn't believe, but rather, they >> would know. > >The would believe AND know If you KNOW something, you don't believe it. I KNOW the sun will shine again. I don't have to believe it will. > >>>>>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. >>>Which is also the atheist position .. you are confusing atheist with the >>>subset "strong-atheist", who not only have a lack of theism (ie no belief >>>in >>>gods) but also a belief that gods to not exists. >> Perhaps I have. > >:) > I can accept that I could be wrong. Further, when I'm shown that I am, I admit it. It's not fun (who wants to admit they're wrong?), but I'll do it. -- Kent Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon.
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 15:14
As I understand it, on 5 May 2007 09:47:09 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 5, 9:49 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> As I understand it, on Sat, 5 May 2007 13:12:07 +1000, "Jeckyl" >> >> >> >> >> >> <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >"Kent Wills" <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:80fn33htcpv4ar4e8nqpoa8397u3635qa3(a)4ax.com... >> >> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 10:37:06 +1000, "Jeckyl" >> >> <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >>>"Kent Wills" <compu...(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" >> >>>> <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ <thep...(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 wasn't talking about sane people, I was talking about theists >> >> Some of the most sane people you'll find. > >Theism and sanity are contradictions in terms. God belief is a >delusion. > Not under any psychological definition of the word delusion. -- Kent Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon. |