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 7 May 2007 06:23 As I understand it, on 6 May 2007 19:22:02 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >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. Which is very different from the previous claim that all agnostics are atheists. -- Kent Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!
From: Martin Phipps on 7 May 2007 06:34 On May 7, 6:30 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 12:32:04 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez > > _" <thep...(a)jonez.net> wrote: > >Kent Wills 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. And many times you were answered. Either you have a selective memory or you were unable to understand what was said to you. > >>>>> 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. Why can't you just admit that you are an idiot when it has been proven to all? Martin
From: Martin Phipps on 7 May 2007 06:51 On May 7, 6:22 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As I understand it, on 6 May 2007 18:56:35 -0700, Martin Phipps > > <martinphip...(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? I don't. And don't accuse me of lying without proof. If I were in the US right now I would consider suing you for libel. _Your_ lies are posted all over the net. You won't find a lie from me because I never post any. > Offering information that suggests Christianity is based on > another religion does not prove it wrong, nor prove atheism correct. Then why don't you pray to Anu, Enki, Bel, Ki, Ishtar and all the other Sumerian gods then? You might as well pray to all the Greek and Egyptian gods too because they're just as valid as your religion. > Deal with it. It's about time you did. > It may be enough to convince you, but those of us with a > functioning brain stem need actual proof. Get back to me when you can demonstrate proof that you actually have this functioning brain stem that you claim to have. Martin
From: Martin Phipps on 7 May 2007 06:52 On May 7, 6:23 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As I understand it, on 6 May 2007 19:22:02 -0700, Martin Phipps > > <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >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. > > Which is very different from the previous claim that all > agnostics are atheists. No, it isn't. Agnostics are a subset of atheists. Did you never take a basic logic course? Martin
From: Robibnikoff on 7 May 2007 11:48
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote in message news:bNmdnd2EGtKzgKHbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > Robibnikoff wrote: >> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> >> snip >> >>>That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY >>>definition. >> >> >> So? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Deal. > > > Deal with it yourself. The accepted definition is that atheists believe > there are no gods. Accepted by whom? People who want it to be that? Sorry, you don't count. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 |