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 18:31 As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 13:28:42 -0700, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7(a)nospam.net> wrote: >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. > CAN be an atheist? Not nearly as absolute as was previously posted. -- Kent Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!
From: Jim07D7 on 6 May 2007 20:30 Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com> said: >As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 13:28:42 -0700, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7(a)nospam.net> wrote: > >>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. >> > > CAN be an atheist? Not nearly as absolute as was previously >posted. Well, I'm not the previous poster. One of the things to know about non-theists, if you don't already, is that there is no orthodoxy and no revealed truth. He has his take, I have mine. I don't mind his being wrong (;-)) as long as we can leave each other be. If you and I can do that, I don't mind your being wrong, either. ;-)
From: Kent Wills on 6 May 2007 21:46 As I understand it, on Mon, 07 May 2007 00:30:42 GMT, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7(a)nospam.net> wrote: >Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com> said: > >>As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 13:28:42 -0700, Jim07D7 >><Jim07D7(a)nospam.net> wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >> >> CAN be an atheist? Not nearly as absolute as was previously >>posted. > >Well, I'm not the previous poster. I know. If you were, I would have pointed it out. >One of the things to know about >non-theists, if you don't already, is that there is no orthodoxy and >no revealed truth. That reminds me of a comedy bit I heard from Paula Poundstone. She is, or at least was, an atheist (Outside of her being on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me..., I don't pay attention to her, so I don't know what's going on in her life). She comment that one nice thing about being an atheist is that there's no command to convert. She doesn't go to people's houses early Saturday mornings, waking people up and saying, "Good news, there is no word. I'd like to leave these blank booklets for you to look over at your leisure." It was quite funny. The written text doesn't transmit the vocal inflections she used. It was on an episode of "A Prairie Home Companion" three years ago or so, if you want to try and find it. She also mentioned how she was court ordered to attend AA, on live TV, which kind of ruined that second A. Funny the way she presented it. But I digress. >He has his take, I have mine. I don't mind his >being wrong (;-)) as long as we can leave each other be. If you and I >can do that, I don't mind your being wrong, either. ;-) I really don't have an issue with people being atheist. Sadly, most I've encountered have a real issue with me being a Christian. -- Kent Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon.
From: Martin Phipps on 6 May 2007 22:22 On May 7, 1:44 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" > > <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"Larry" <x...(a)y.com> wrote in message > >news:x-BF313D.12514405052007(a)news.west.earthlink.net... > >> In article <1178383438.823684.52...(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...(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. Atheists don't believe that God exists. Agnostics are, in addition, unwilling to come out and say that God definitely does not exist. Martin
From: Kent Wills on 7 May 2007 06:22
As I understand it, on 6 May 2007 18:56:35 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >Why do you deny it? >> >> You've offered no proof to convince anyone of your claim. > >Why do you godbots always have to lie? Why do *you* have to lie? Offering information that suggests Christianity is based on another religion does not prove it wrong, nor prove atheism correct. Deal with it. It may be enough to convince you, but those of us with a functioning brain stem need actual proof. -- Kent Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon. |