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: Jeckyl on 4 May 2007 00:01 "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message news:59vlrtFbi4qnU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Jeckyl wrote: >> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote in message >> news:vrSdnW0ImsD7D6fbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>> Uncle Vic wrote: >>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kent Wills wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Where's the proof that atheism is correct? Why do you run and >>>>>> hide when I ask about it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> (Piggybacking) >>>> >>>> Atheism is the neutral position. Atheists make no positive claims. >>> >>> They positively state that there are no gods. >> >> Incorrect. Only a subset of atheists do that (stong atheism or >> radical atheism). All an atheist needs is a lack of belief in god. As >> soon as there is any doubt, you are an atheist. >> >> see http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm >> http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/#F1 >> >>> Atheism is a religion, just as sure as Christianity is. >> >> No .. it is not. Strong atheism _might_ be able to be called a >> religion, depending on your defintition of what is it. > Bullshit. Not by any rational definition of "religion". That's exactly what I went on to say before your explicative. That by any useful sense of the word, strong atheism is not a religion. >> In the loose >> sense it can be any system of ethics, values, and belief. As weak >> atheism has no belief and does not put forward any particular code of >> ethics or values, its not a religion. Strong atheism has the belief >> that god(s) does not exist, > > Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have > been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to explain the > universe. Yes. That is a belief. >> but agan, no code of ehtics or values. So no, it would not be a religion >> in any useful sense of the word. > Exactly. There you go .. there was no need for the 'bullshit' remark >>>> Where is your proof the any religion is correct? >>> There is none - where is your proof that there are no gods? >> Atheists don't need one .. all they need is for there to be no proof >> that there are gods .. and that justifies their position completely. > > Kent doesn't quite comprehend the obvious, then again he believes > that humans exhale Carbon Monoxide and that accusing someone > of being pregnant who in fact isn't pregnant is *not* a false accusation. I don't see that, in general, being pregnant would be a crime of which to be accused in the first place.
From: Martin Phipps on 4 May 2007 00:02 On May 4, 1:14 am, "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. Briefly, the Christian god is no different than Zeus or Amon-Ra as Judeo-Christinaity was inspired by the same mythology that inspired the Greek and Egyptian pantheons. Do google searches for "Elohim" and "Annuaki" for more information. Martin
From: � UltraMan � on 4 May 2007 00:13 Jeckyl wrote: > "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message > news:59vlrtFbi4qnU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Jeckyl wrote: >>> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote in message >>> news:vrSdnW0ImsD7D6fbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>>> Uncle Vic wrote: >>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Kent Wills wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Where's the proof that atheism is correct? Why do you run and >>>>>>> hide when I ask about it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (Piggybacking) >>>>> >>>>> Atheism is the neutral position. Atheists make no positive claims. >>>> >>>> They positively state that there are no gods. >>> >>> Incorrect. Only a subset of atheists do that (stong atheism or >>> radical atheism). All an atheist needs is a lack of belief in god. >>> As soon as there is any doubt, you are an atheist. >>> >>> see http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm >>> http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/#F1 >>> >>>> Atheism is a religion, just as sure as Christianity is. >>> >>> No .. it is not. Strong atheism _might_ be able to be called a >>> religion, depending on your defintition of what is it. >> Bullshit. Not by any rational definition of "religion". > > That's exactly what I went on to say before your explicative. That > by any useful sense of the word, strong atheism is not a religion. > >>> In the loose >>> sense it can be any system of ethics, values, and belief. As weak >>> atheism has no belief and does not put forward any particular code >>> of ethics or values, its not a religion. Strong atheism has the >>> belief that god(s) does not exist, >> >> Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have >> been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to >> explain the universe. > > Yes. That is a belief. No, it's a rational and logical conclusion given the facts. > >>> but agan, no code of ehtics or values. So no, it would not be a >>> religion in any useful sense of the word. >> Exactly. > > There you go .. there was no need for the 'bullshit' remark Yes there was. Asserting that A-theism might possibly be a "religion" is a tautological impossibility. > >>>>> Where is your proof the any religion is correct? >>>> There is none - where is your proof that there are no gods? >>> Atheists don't need one .. all they need is for there to be no proof >>> that there are gods .. and that justifies their position completely. >> >> Kent doesn't quite comprehend the obvious, then again he believes >> that humans exhale Carbon Monoxide and that accusing someone >> of being pregnant who in fact isn't pregnant is *not* a false >> accusation. > > I don't see that, in general, being pregnant would be a crime of > which to be accused in the first place. Would the accusation be true or false in the instance stated?
From: Jeckyl on 4 May 2007 02:19 "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message news:59vq7sF2lekskU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Jeckyl wrote: >> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >> news:59vlrtFbi4qnU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have >>> been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to >>> explain the universe. >> >> Yes. That is a belief. > > No Does a strong atheist hold that it is true? ifso , then it is a belif of the strong atheist. > it's a rational and logical conclusion given the facts. What facts are they .. do you have a proof that god does not exist? >>>> but agan, no code of ehtics or values. So no, it would not be a >>>> religion in any useful sense of the word. >>> Exactly. >> There you go .. there was no need for the 'bullshit' remark > Yes there was. Asserting that A-theism might possibly > be a "religion" is a tautological impossibility. Not really .. just not in any useful way. Strong atheism has a particular belief that all strong atheists share. But that is not a useful definition of a religion, as then anything that people hold as true could be a religion. >>>>>> Where is your proof the any religion is correct? >>>>> There is none - where is your proof that there are no gods? >>>> Atheists don't need one .. all they need is for there to be no proof >>>> that there are gods .. and that justifies their position completely. >>> Kent doesn't quite comprehend the obvious, then again he believes >>> that humans exhale Carbon Monoxide and that accusing someone >>> of being pregnant who in fact isn't pregnant is *not* a false >>> accusation. >> I don't see that, in general, being pregnant would be a crime of >> which to be accused in the first place. > Would the accusation be true or false in the instance stated? I have no idea of what the actual instance was. I think it likely that it was not as straightforward as you are saying (ie that you've simplified it possibly to make it seem more absurd) .. some important detail might have been deleted.
From: � UltraMan � on 4 May 2007 03:25
Jeckyl wrote: > "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message > news:59vq7sF2lekskU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Jeckyl wrote: >>> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>> news:59vlrtFbi4qnU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have >>>> been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to >>>> explain the universe. >>> >>> Yes. That is a belief. >> >> No > > Does a strong atheist hold that it is true? ifso , then it is a > belif of the strong atheist. Belief is the absence of Knowledge. > >> it's a rational and logical conclusion given the facts. > > What facts are they .. All of them. >do you have a proof that god does not exist? Which god in particular? > >>>>> but agan, no code of ehtics or values. So no, it would not be a >>>>> religion in any useful sense of the word. >>>> Exactly. >>> There you go .. there was no need for the 'bullshit' remark >> Yes there was. Asserting that A-theism might possibly >> be a "religion" is a tautological impossibility. > > Not really .. just not in any useful way. Strong atheism has a > particular belief that all strong atheists share. But that is not a > useful definition of a religion, as then anything that people hold as > true could be a religion. Which is why it is misleading to conflate the terms belief, faith and religion. > >>>>>>> Where is your proof the any religion is correct? >>>>>> There is none - where is your proof that there are no gods? >>>>> Atheists don't need one .. all they need is for there to be no >>>>> proof that there are gods .. and that justifies their position >>>>> completely. >>>> Kent doesn't quite comprehend the obvious, then again he believes >>>> that humans exhale Carbon Monoxide and that accusing someone >>>> of being pregnant who in fact isn't pregnant is *not* a false >>>> accusation. >>> I don't see that, in general, being pregnant would be a crime of >>> which to be accused in the first place. >> Would the accusation be true or false in the instance stated? > > I have no idea of what the actual instance was. I think it likely > that it was not as straightforward as you are saying (ie that you've > simplified it possibly to make it seem more absurd) .. some important > detail might have been deleted. Here's the original: Kent Wills wrote: > "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote: >> When the jury finds that the person you accused of being pregnant is in >> fact not pregnant, then, ipso facto, your initial allegation/charge is >> false. > > If the woman in question had put on a great deal of weight and was seen > shopping in the maternity section of the store, there was probable cause > to believe she was pregnant. That she turned out not to be pregnant > doesn't mean the allegation was false. --- "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 |