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: Kent Wills on 6 May 2007 13:44 As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote in message >news:x-BF313D.12514405052007(a)news.west.earthlink.net... >> In article <1178383438.823684.52500(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> 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? > >He said accusing people of not offering it (I asusme that means when they >acutally did) .. not of asking for it I've asked MANY times. > >>> 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. > >He didn't say they were not different. > >However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are Agnostics. > I think you have that backwards. -- Kent Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!
From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on 6 May 2007 14:32 Kent Wills wrote: > As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" > <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote in message >> news:x-BF313D.12514405052007(a)news.west.earthlink.net... >>> In article <1178383438.823684.52500(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> 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? >> >> He said accusing people of not offering it (I asusme that means when >> they acutally did) .. not of asking for it > > I've asked MANY times. > >> >>>> 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. >> >> He didn't say they were not different. >> >> However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are >> Agnostics. >> > > I think you have that backwards. "Let's pretend breathing is outlawed and everyone the world over ceases inhaling and exhaling. There will be NO change in CO2 levels since we exhale carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide, stupid." -- Kent Wills
From: Jim07D7 on 6 May 2007 16:28 Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com> said: >As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" ><noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: <...> >>He didn't say they were not different. >> >>However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are Agnostics. >> > > I think you have that backwards. Look the words up at dictionary.com and you will see. It depends on which definition you choose. You might also have to look up "disbelieve". An atheist can be an agnostic, or not. An agnostic can be an atheist, but cannot be a theist.
From: Deadrat on 6 May 2007 16:39 Jim07D7 <Jim07D7(a)nospam.net> wrote in news:e4es33t3pra4l85d51rqg30i6gpqa8du73(a)4ax.com: > Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com> said: > >>As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" >><noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > <...> >>>He didn't say they were not different. >>> >>>However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are >>>Agnostics. >>> >> >> I think you have that backwards. > > Look the words up at dictionary.com and you will see. It depends on > which definition you choose. You might also have to look up > "disbelieve". > > An atheist can be an agnostic, or not. > > An agnostic can be an atheist, but cannot be a theist. Dictionaries can be misleading. In the context of American politics, look up the word "conservative."
From: Kent Wills on 6 May 2007 18:30
As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 12:32:04 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote: >Kent Wills wrote: >> As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" >> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>> "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote in message >>> news:x-BF313D.12514405052007(a)news.west.earthlink.net... >>>> In article <1178383438.823684.52500(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> 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? >>> >>> He said accusing people of not offering it (I asusme that means when >>> they acutally did) .. not of asking for it >> >> I've asked MANY times. >> >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> He didn't say they were not different. >>> >>> However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are >>> Agnostics. >>> >> >> I think you have that backwards. > >"Let's pretend breathing is outlawed and everyone the world >over ceases inhaling and exhaling. >There will be NO change in CO2 levels since we exhale carbon >monoxide, not carbon dioxide, stupid." > -- Kent Wills > Do I need to ask, again, why you refuse to post the follow-up I made, within an hour, pointing out that I confused the two? Meh, there's no point. You'll never acknowledge the post since, as you've proved, you can't be honest ever, about anything. And since you can't be honest, I'm just going to let you keep posting your lies without any interference from me. Post whatsoever you want. -- Kent Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon. |