| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 07:37:14 PM |
| Object: |
-Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
- - -
2) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God has ever
created anything, or has ever existed
- - -
3) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God wants anything
- - -
4) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any document or group
of documents conveys what any God wants
- - -
5) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God wants to be
worshipped
- - -
6) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God wants money
to be given to any religious entities
- - -
7) No one has proven (or provided convincing
evidence) that any God answers any prayer
- - -
8) It's easy to prove (and provide convincing
evidence) that no God answers specific prayers
with testable criteria (i.e., criteria by which a
specific God is asked to answer a prayer, and
a desired result transpires which is attributable
*only* to a specific God as *the* causal agent
rather than to the laws of nature/physics)
- - -
9) No one has proven (or provided convincing
evidence) that there is any afterlife (or any rein-
carnation)
- - -
10) No one has proven (or provided convincing
evidence) that acts or lack of acts or belief or
lack of belief in any God has any impact what-
soever on any afterlife (or any reincarnation)
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
05 Feb 2005 09:44:28 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
- - -
After that, the rest is kind of pointless eh?
That's insurmountable only because of your demands of personal verification. If
100 people testifying that God exists isn't good enough for you, then God's
just going to have to come down from some cloud and prove it him/her/itself.
Ask God some time. God just might.
I testify, on pain of perjury: God is real, is continuously present, and is now
and ever shall be. I can find some friends, and enemies, to give similar
testimony if it'll help.
Sounds like it won't. You must have tremendous problems with criminal trials as
well. I think witness testimony is valuable and evidential. Think of how many
unverifiable things you accept in your life before you knock it.
On a silly note, just because he/she/it hasn't yet, doesn't mean God won't tap
your shoulder and ask you to build an ark tomorrow. Just be ready if the time
ever comes. ;^)
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
07 Feb 2005 03:39:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:44:28 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
After that, the rest is kind of pointless eh?
That's insurmountable only because of your demands of personal verification. If
100 people testifying that God exists
That's not evidence.
Anything that objectively exists leaves objective evidence. Therefore
either a) there's objective evidence of your god or b) your god
doesn't objectively exist.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
07 Feb 2005 08:37:32 AM |
|
|
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:44:28 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
After that, the rest is kind of pointless eh?
That's insurmountable only because of your demands of personal verification. If
100 people testifying that God exists
Please do not clip my posts in the middle of sentences. Just because you didn't
read the whole sentence doesn't mean others should suffer. Kindly keep your
sound-bite sized attention span to yourself.
Complete sentence:
If
100 people testifying that God exists isn't good enough for you, then God's
just going to have to come down from some cloud and prove it him/her/itself.
That's not evidence.
Now that we have some context, I can reply. That's just not evidence *you* are
willing to accept. I understand if you feel that God had better tap you on the
shoulder before you believe in him. I think that's a healthy instinct.
However, what I described above is evidence in a court of law, and many other
places. If a hundred people say they saw someone murder someone else, and they
are willing to testify to it, that someone's going to jail, even if they can't
find the body. Subjective accounts, in large numbers, are considered evidence
by the very society you live in. In some states, they'll light you up like a
menorah on the eighth day on the basis of subjective accounts. In most, they'll
just throw you in jail.
You seem like the kind of guy who would stubbornly hang-up a jury because you
believed otherwise. I think that's fantastic. No sarcasm. God bless the
skeptics. No insult.
Anything that objectively exists leaves objective evidence. Therefore
either a) there's objective evidence of your god or b) your god
doesn't objectively exist.
You are correct. I can't prove my God objectively exists. It doesn't seem to me
personally that there is an "objective God," or at least not one that is
provable. As an earnest theist, I will tell you that there is a God. I cannot
honestly say that my religion's God is that God. Only that *I think it is*. It
is completely subjective because, in my experience, God is a personal and
individual experience.
Of course, I also believe that there's no such thing as true objectivity. I
believe objectivity is an ideology.
Heard of the "observer effect?" I don't believe for a second that humans can
change the world around them with their minds, but some people have strangely
concluded that rather than accept the Occam's razor explanation that we are all
imprecise instruments. We all have our own flavor and spin.
It's simple empiricism. Basing one's conclusions on personal experience and
communication with others. Witness accounts *are* most certainly empirical
evidence, but they are far from objective.
To bring this back down to Earth, as a theist, I would say you are missing a
sixth sense that a lot of people have, or that you are refusing to use it.
Pretty simple actually. If you can do without sight, you don't have to open
your eyes. Why bother?
(On an interesting side-note, it's apparent that one's other senses become more
attuned if you are deprived of one. I would guess you have a better set of the
first five senses than I do. Perhaps that's why we theists seem somewhat obtuse
to atheists.)
Since you're an atheist, I would assume you don't care to find out if you have
that sense. There is all sorts of subjective evidence around that says belief
in God can be dangerous. One look at a picture of Jonestown will tell you that.
Of course, why the atomic bomb didn't make people realize that scientific study
is dangerous is beyond me. Our objectivism, when used irresponsibly, can be as
bad as my theism, when used irresponsibly.
Point is, just because you can't sense it or measure it, doesn't mean it isn't
there. It might just mean you don't have accurate equipment. The truest
statement an objectivist can make about God is, "I don't know if there's a
God," or "I don't care because its useless or threatening to me."
The statement that "There is no God" is as much an act of Faith as me saying
that there is one. The difference being that I claim I've spotted God once or
twice, so I have every reason to have Faith in God. Atheists are busily stating
a negative that can *never* be proven every time they are confronted with
someone they don't like.
I'm convinced one of us theists will come up with a God-o-matic sensor some day
and you'll all look kinda dopey. ;^)
My 2 cents. I think you're abrasive, but I like you Al. Probably because I'm
abrasive as well. May you get what you need, may you find what you desire. ;^)
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
07 Feb 2005 08:47:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:37:32 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:44:28 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
After that, the rest is kind of pointless eh?
That's insurmountable only because of your demands of personal verification. If
100 people testifying that God exists
Please do not clip my posts in the middle of sentences.
I responded to "If 100 people testifying that God exists". If you
don't like my responses don't read them.
And 100, or 100 million, people making an assertion is still not
evidence.
Now that we have some context, I can reply. That's just not evidence *you* are
willing to accept.
Sorry, no - NO ONE accepts assertion as objective evidence - because
it isn't, it's SUBJECTIVE.
Remainder of lack of evidence snipped.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
09 Feb 2005 02:13:44 AM |
|
|
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:37:32 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:44:28 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
After that, the rest is kind of pointless eh?
That's insurmountable only because of your demands of personal verification. If
100 people testifying that God exists
Please do not clip my posts in the middle of sentences.
I responded to "If 100 people testifying that God exists". If you
don't like my responses don't read them.
But who were you responding to? Certainly not me. Your response is just fine.
It's just irrational in face of MY original and complete statement.
Your mutilation of MY question is what's unacceptable to me. You can go on
trimming reality to suit your needs, but it's gonna wind you up in trouble some
day.
It's no coincidence you instructed me "not to read" what I don't like. That's
what you do, even though you look over my articles. What you "like" is me
sounding like a fool. So you don't answer my real statements, just sound bites.
I still read your replies. Please don't ask me to killfile you again.
And 100, or 100 million, people making an assertion is still not
evidence.
Now that we have some context, I can reply. That's just not evidence *you* are
willing to accept.
Sorry, no - NO ONE accepts assertion as objective evidence - because
it isn't, it's SUBJECTIVE.
Remainder of lack of evidence snipped.
[And compliments and statements of praise I made about you. (and anything else
you're unwilling to accept, for that matter.)]
The original author didn't ask for OBJECTIVE evidence. He asked for evidence.
Testable, verifiable evidence. All testable evidence, like it or not, is
subjective. It's admissable in a court of law.
As I said, even if the body is missing, and you can't prove there was a murder,
you can still nail someone for that murder with enough subjective testimony.
Even if you can't prove there was an *actual murder*, enough people saying
there was one is enough to convict. Do you accept the criminal court system?
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification. If God
ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your verification. You have to ask.
Don't ask a theist, ask God. You may feel a little foolish if you ask
earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
That answer is more for the original poster than you. I don't think you even
care to find out about God. The original poster said it was insurmountable. It
isn't, but it takes cooperation.
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
09 Feb 2005 04:14:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:37:32 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
I responded to "If 100 people testifying that God exists". If you
don't like my responses don't read them.
But who were you responding to?
Anyone and everyone reading the thread. This is usenet, not email.
Now that we have some context, I can reply. That's just not evidence *you* are
willing to accept.
Sorry, no - NO ONE accepts assertion as objective evidence - because
it isn't, it's SUBJECTIVE.
Remainder of lack of evidence snipped.
[And compliments and statements of praise I made about you. (and anything else
you're unwilling to accept, for that matter.)]
The original author didn't ask for OBJECTIVE evidence. He asked for evidence.
Testable, verifiable evidence.
That's objective evidence. Opinions can't be verified.
All testable evidence, like it or not, is subjective. It's admissable in a court of law.
But not in science, which is more to the point.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
Really? Then please verify my personal experience of having been
dead, so that people will stop telling me that I wasn't.
If God ever finds you
Assuming your conclusion isn't very convincing.
Don't ask a theist, ask God.
I have evidence that theists exist. Post some that your god does.
Objective evidence that he exists objectively.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
Or to gain. I have much more important things to do. Like wait for
the grass that's buried under the snow on my lawn to start growing
again.
That answer is more for the original poster than you. I don't think you even
care to find out about God.
Sure I do. I'll read ALL the objective evidence you have about your
god.
The original poster said it was insurmountable. It isn't, but it takes cooperation.
I'll cooperate. You post the evidence, I'll read it.
(Save your breath about "believing is seeing". ALL religions make
that claim - and, at best, only one of them can be right.)
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
13 Feb 2005 09:48:08 AM |
|
|
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:37:32 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
I responded to "If 100 people testifying that God exists". If you
don't like my responses don't read them.
But who were you responding to?
Anyone and everyone reading the thread. This is usenet, not email.
I disagree with your interpretation of Usenet tradition and procedures. Spend
some time in the Big-8 and see how they react to that crap.
Now that we have some context, I can reply. That's just not evidence *you* are
willing to accept.
Sorry, no - NO ONE accepts assertion as objective evidence - because
it isn't, it's SUBJECTIVE.
Remainder of lack of evidence snipped.
[And compliments and statements of praise I made about you. (and anything else
you're unwilling to accept, for that matter.)]
The original author didn't ask for OBJECTIVE evidence. He asked for evidence.
Testable, verifiable evidence.
That's objective evidence. Opinions can't be verified.
Nope. Subjective evidence indicates real fact as well as objective evidence. An
opinion is:
"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by *positive
knowledge* or proof." (emphasis added)
Obviously, God is unprovable. That's "objective evidence." I can't prove this
to you.
But I have "positive knowledge" of God. That's subjective evidence, not opinon.
I've been there and done that. I'm sorry you've been left out of the loop.
All testable evidence, like it or not, is subjective. It's admissable in a court of law.
But not in science, which is more to the point.
Okay, so you only rely on scientific evidence. The criminal court system is a
scam if the only evidence to convict is testable evidence.
If you wind up before a judge in such a situation, I suggest you leave your
scientific arrogance behind and get a lawyer who understands that subjective
evidence is real evidence. I know he's intellectually no better than a priest
at that point, but you'll be better off.
I don't believe in hell, but I think we both believe in jail. ;^)
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
Really? Then please verify my personal experience of having been
dead, so that people will stop telling me that I wasn't.
We're you really dead? What happened?
And I will believe you if you say you were. I'd like to hear your personal
account.
If God ever finds you
Assuming your conclusion isn't very convincing.
Not trying to convince you, and I'm not assuming a conclusion to any logical
argument. I know God's there. I've met God, in a strange sort of way.
The argument is about what evidence is, not about God. I know you don't believe
in God.
Oh, and once again, you're snipping the hell out of context. It's really
annoying as a reader of the thread to have to jump back to the previous post to
remember what all the previous poster was saying. Make it easier on them. Reply
to full quotes, not snippage. For everyone's sake.
Don't ask a theist, ask God.
I have evidence that theists exist. Post some that your god does.
Objective evidence that he exists objectively.
God doesn't exist objectively. Best answer I can give. It's like Saruman the
White becoming Saruman of Many Colors. God is prismatic.
In fact, show me objective evidence of a pure white light source. None of the
reflected stuff, a source. Do you believe in white?
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
Or to gain. I have much more important things to do. Like wait for
the grass that's buried under the snow on my lawn to start growing
again.
Surely you can do other things while you wait? I wait for the coming of Spring
with baited breath every year.
That answer is more for the original poster than you. I don't think you even
care to find out about God.
Sure I do. I'll read ALL the objective evidence you have about your
god.
I'll send you out to one of Hawking's "black holes" for that book. It's just
beyond the event horizon. ;^)
The original poster said it was insurmountable. It isn't, but it takes cooperation.
I'll cooperate. You post the evidence, I'll read it.
Heh. Ask the librarian. It's in the great big bookstore in the sky. ;^)
(Save your breath about "believing is seeing". ALL religions make
that claim - and, at best, only one of them can be right.)
Actually, they may all be right. I'm still working on that one. Religious
exclusivity, and religion for the most part, seems silly to me.
BTW, I gave up Usenet for Lent, so I'll only be posting on Sundays. Thought
you'd get a kick out of that. ;^)
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
13 Feb 2005 07:57:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:48:08 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The original author didn't ask for OBJECTIVE evidence. He asked for evidence.
Testable, verifiable evidence.
That's objective evidence. Opinions can't be verified.
Nope. Subjective evidence indicates real fact as well as objective evidence.
"Subjective evidence" is also known as "opinion". See your dictionary
definition below.
An opinion is:
"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by *positive
knowledge* or proof." (emphasis added)
And that's what subjective evidence is - "proceeding from or taking
place in a person's mind rather than the external world". IOW "a
belief or conclusion ... not substantiated by positive knowledge or
proof".
Obviously, God is unprovable. That's "objective evidence." I can't prove this
to you.
Whether your god is provable depends on the definition you give your
god. Since Christianity isn't of one mind about that your god may or
may not be provable (or, rather disprovable - a definition that
contradicts itself can't be of a real thing).
So that's objective evidence that your god is unprovable - or isn't.
IOW, it's not objective evidence of anything at all.
But I have "positive knowledge" of God.
That would be something objective. If it's just something that exists
solely in your mind it's not positive knowledge, it's positive belief.
That's subjective evidence, not opinon.
Since they're both the same - by dictionary definition, which you seem
to want to go by - and since the only "knowledge" you can have about a
god is your opinion, your god's existence is your opinion. It's still
not objective evidence of anything, let alone of the objective
existence of your god.
All testable evidence, like it or not, is subjective. It's admissable in a court of law.
But not in science, which is more to the point.
Okay, so you only rely on scientific evidence.
To prove the actual existence of something, sure. Courts decide
legality, not actuality.
The criminal court system is a
scam if the only evidence to convict is testable evidence.
We're not discussing whether your god legally exists, but whether it
*actually* exists. Courts don't decide actuality, they decide
legality.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
Really? Then please verify my personal experience of having been
dead, so that people will stop telling me that I wasn't.
We're you really dead? What happened?
Sort version - I died.
Long version - I was in the hospital after a heart attack. I
"stopped" - flat EKG, flat EEG. The nurse was taking my pulse, the
doctor was passing the room, so she called him in, he resuscitated me
(after working on me for quite a while, with a small team), and I'm
still here.
My viewpoint? The nurse was taking my pulse. I had a tube in my
throat, the sun had moved across the sky and there were more people in
the room. Just like that.
If God ever finds you
Assuming your conclusion isn't very convincing.
Not trying to convince you, and I'm not assuming a conclusion to any logical
argument. I know God's there. I've met God, in a strange sort of way.
And, having been dead, I can tell you that the Christian idea of life
after death is totally wrong. You think you know, I do know.
It's like a kid who's never been to Daddy's office insisting that the
office is green, when Daddy knows that it's yellow. He might correct
the kid, he might just smile indulgently, but he knows that the kid is
just making something up. No matter what the kid says or does, Daddy
*KNOWS* that the office is yellow. He's been there - the kid hasn't.
The argument is about what evidence is, not about God. I know you don't believe
in God.
And why? No actual (objective) evidence that any god, yours or any
other, actually (objectively) exists.
Oh, and once again, you're snipping the hell out of context. It's really
annoying as a reader of the thread to have to jump back to the previous post to
remember what all the previous poster was saying. Make it easier on them. Reply
to full quotes, not snippage. For everyone's sake.
Alternatively, one should learn to trim replies to the parts to which
one is replying.
Don't ask a theist, ask God.
I have evidence that theists exist. Post some that your god does.
Objective evidence that he exists objectively.
God doesn't exist objectively.
Then you and atheists agree, and what's all the discussion about? We
all (atheists) believe in your subjective god. No one has ever
claimed that it doesn't exist.
In fact, show me objective evidence of a pure white light source. None of the
reflected stuff, a source. Do you believe in white?
If "white" is defined (not too accurately, but for the purpose of this
discussion) as "all colors in the visible spectrum combined" (which
makes "pure white light source" a nonsense phrase), of course. If you
redefine it as a color in itself, of course not.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
Or to gain. I have much more important things to do. Like wait for
the grass that's buried under the snow on my lawn to start growing
again.
Surely you can do other things while you wait?
Make tea, yawn, take a nap. Many things that are infinitely more
important that asking a question of something that only exists in your
mind.
I wait for the coming of Spring with baited breath every year.
"Bated". Unless your breath smells like worms?
That answer is more for the original poster than you. I don't think you even
care to find out about God.
Sure I do. I'll read ALL the objective evidence you have about your
god.
I'll send you out to one of Hawking's "black holes" for that book. It's just
beyond the event horizon. ;^)
IOW, it doesn't objectively exist.
The original poster said it was insurmountable. It isn't, but it takes cooperation.
I'll cooperate. You post the evidence, I'll read it.
Heh. Ask the librarian. It's in the great big bookstore in the sky. ;^)
Been there, done that. No such book there. (Remember, the major
claim of Christianity, "when you die ..." doesn't work on me - I
already died, so I know whether the claim is true. And none of
Christianity's are.)
(Save your breath about "believing is seeing". ALL religions make
that claim - and, at best, only one of them can be right.)
Actually, they may all be right. I'm still working on that one. Religious
exclusivity, and religion for the most part, seems silly to me.
So all religions, even the ones that contradict other ones, are all
correct? Some universe you live in.
BTW, I gave up Usenet for Lent, so I'll only be posting on Sundays. Thought
you'd get a kick out of that. ;^)
No. I fail to see any humor in it. Maybe one has to be Christian to
understand it? (I never was.)
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
12 Feb 2005 03:37:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
[]
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification. If God
ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your verification. You have to ask.
Don't ask a theist, ask God. You may feel a little foolish if you ask
earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
If Santa Claus ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your
verification. You have to ask. Don't ask a child, ask Santa Claus.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's
nothing to lose.
That answer is more for the original poster than you. I don't think you even
care to find out about God. The original poster said it was insurmountable. It
isn't, but it takes cooperation.
(laughing @ you)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
12 Feb 2005 04:35:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:37:22 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification. If God
ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your verification. You have to ask.
Don't ask a theist, ask God. You may feel a little foolish if you ask
earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
If Santa Claus ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your
verification. You have to ask. Don't ask a child, ask Santa Claus.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's
nothing to lose.
Which is why they should bow to the North 5 times a day ...
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
13 Feb 2005 07:23:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:35:49 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:37:22 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification. If God
ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your verification. You have to ask.
Don't ask a theist, ask God. You may feel a little foolish if you ask
earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
If Santa Claus ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your
verification. You have to ask. Don't ask a child, ask Santa Claus.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's
nothing to lose.
Which is why they should bow to the North 5 times a day ...
And tithe the milk and cookies daily.....
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
13 Feb 2005 09:05:47 AM |
|
|
stoney bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
[]
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification. If God
ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your verification. You have to ask.
Don't ask a theist, ask God. You may feel a little foolish if you ask
earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
If Santa Claus ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your
verification. You have to ask. Don't ask a child, ask Santa Claus.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's
nothing to lose.
Exactly right. You apparently understand me. Worst thing that can happen is
that Santa Claus stays by his fireplace up in the North Pole and quietly gives
you the bird because he doesn't want to fire up the sleigh in the off season.
However, to extend your analogy, the reason I don't believe in Santa Claus'
existence is the hundreds of millions of parents who say that they knowingly
made him up. Same goes for ***** Tracy and Captain Kirk.
Who amongst the faithful has said such a thing about God? Only atheists say
humans knowingly made God up, and considering they have absolutely zero
experience with God, by their own admission, they are in NO position to say.
It's like a bunch of Hindi saying they don't believe in Santa Claus and he's
just made up when they have only heard about him in translated books, if at
all. It's obtuse.
The best a man can say about God is "who f!in cares?" That's an agnostic, not
an atheist.
That answer is more for the original poster than you. I don't think you even
care to find out about God. The original poster said it was insurmountable. It
isn't, but it takes cooperation.
(laughing @ you)
I'm glad to bring you amusement. ;^)
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
13 Feb 2005 07:19:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:05:47 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
However, to extend your analogy, the reason I don't believe in Santa Claus'
existence is the hundreds of millions of parents who say that they knowingly
made him up.
However, to extend your analogy, the reason I don't believe in your
god's existence is the tens of thousands of religions that have
claimed that their god is the only real one, and that you made yours
up.
Who amongst the faithful has said such a thing about God? Only atheists say
humans knowingly made God up
Theists claim that all gods other than theirs are made up.
and considering they have absolutely zero
experience with God, by their own admission, they are in NO position to say.
Theists are, though, by your own logic. So who are we to argue with
all the theists who claim that the Christian god is made up? (That's
2/3 of the entire population now, and, at one time, was the vast
majority of the world.)
The best a man can say about God is "who f!in cares?" That's an agnostic, not
an atheist.
Not if he doesn't believe in the god in question. Then he's an
atheist. Whether he's an agnostic or not depends on any other
statements he might make about the god. "who f!in cares?" doesn't
define either gnosticism or agnosticism, it only defines apathy.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
13 Feb 2005 06:45:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:05:47 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
stoney bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
[]
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification. If God
ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your verification. You have to ask.
Don't ask a theist, ask God. You may feel a little foolish if you ask
earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
If Santa Claus ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your
verification. You have to ask. Don't ask a child, ask Santa Claus.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's
nothing to lose.
Exactly right. You apparently understand me. Worst thing that can happen is
that Santa Claus stays by his fireplace up in the North Pole and quietly gives
you the bird because he doesn't want to fire up the sleigh in the off season.
However, to extend your analogy, the reason I don't believe in Santa Claus'
existence is the hundreds of millions of parents who say that they knowingly
made him up. Same goes for ***** Tracy and Captain Kirk.
Who amongst the faithful has said such a thing about God? Only atheists say
humans knowingly made God up, and considering they have absolutely zero
experience with God, by their own admission, they are in NO position to say.
In other words only those who have personal experience with god should
be listened to. Fine; as soon as I meet someone who has evidence of
such experience, I will listen to him.
It's like a bunch of Hindi saying they don't believe in Santa Claus and he's
just made up when they have only heard about him in translated books, if at
all. It's obtuse.
No, actually it is being reasonable.
The best a man can say about God is "who f!in cares?" That's an agnostic, not
an atheist.
I see you do not know what agnosticism is either.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
13 Feb 2005 07:48:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:05:47 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
stoney bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:13:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
[]
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification. If God
ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your verification. You have to ask.
Don't ask a theist, ask God. You may feel a little foolish if you ask
earnestly, but there's nothing to lose.
As for verification, personal experience is subjective verification.
If Santa Claus ever finds you, you'll know and you'll have your
verification. You have to ask. Don't ask a child, ask Santa Claus.
You may feel a little foolish if you ask earnestly, but there's
nothing to lose.
Exactly right. You apparently understand me.
I'm mocking you and your childishness. You're utilizing the standard
Christian kindergarten tactics. The tactics young children utilize
with regard to Santa Claus. There are people who have left those
behind when they picked up the tools of adulthood.
Worst thing that can happen is
that Santa Claus stays by his fireplace up in the North Pole and quietly gives
you the bird because he doesn't want to fire up the sleigh in the off season.
However, to extend your analogy,
Not an analogy. It's a direct comparison.
the reason I don't believe in Santa Claus'
existence is the hundreds of millions of parents who say that they knowingly
made him up. Same goes for ***** Tracy and Captain Kirk.
Ah, but they lied. You see, they didn't want to be 'blessed' with the
murderous and malevolent tendencies of Christian mental toddlers.
You see, the same 'answers' Christians utilize making excuses for
their 'god,' can be applied to almost everything else.
Who amongst the faithful has said such a thing about God?
What's a g-o-d?
Only atheists say humans knowingly made God up, and
considering they have absolutely zero experience with God,
by their own admission, they are in NO position to say.
You *are* an idiot.
It's like a bunch of Hindi saying they don't believe in Santa Claus and he's
just made up when they have only heard about him in translated books, if at
all. It's obtuse.
Christians are well beyond obtuse.
The best a man can say about God is "who f!in cares?" That's an agnostic, not
an atheist.
Not at all, as I've indicated and supported before. One can flat
state; "There is no God." Feel free to Google those posts to refresh
your memory.
That answer is more for the original poster than you. I don't think you even
care to find out about God. The original poster said it was insurmountable. It
isn't, but it takes cooperation.
(laughing @ you)
I'm glad to bring you amusement. ;^)
No worries. (bg)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 12:45:45 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and verifiable
evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 06:20:03 AM |
|
|
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and verifiable
evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
Not into defending disbelief? Apparently, but under-
standable, as you apparently retain theistic sympathies,
or have been so brainwashed by theists that your
ability to think free of theistic guilt-tripping is lacking.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 06:42:51 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and verifiable
evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
Not into defending disbelief?
No, I'm not into being preached at.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 06:54:56 AM |
|
|
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote, among many
other things, most of which "David V." ignored ...
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and verifiable
evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
Not into defending disbelief? [...]
No, I'm not into being preached at.
Yep, typical of theistically infected individuals,
convinced that the only way to oppose theism
is to shut up about theism.
Millions go to church weekly, and in opposition
to that point of view, Dave V. recommends dis-
believers shut up.
To Dave V., theists say "THANKS, you disbe-
lievers keep your mouths shut, and we'll tell
you how to doubt and disbelieve in our truth
and immortality promises -- we love it when you
guys adopt the 'silence' act, 'cause that leaves
it up to us, only us, to promote our immortality
seductions -and- our immortality threats. Also,
we add in a friendly god-buddy to answer your
every request. God, we're good, not only con-
vincing believers to follow, but also convincing
disbelievers to keep their mouths shut. Dave V.,
you're a God-send."'
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 06:32:47 PM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
Not into defending disbelief? [...]
No, I'm not into being preached at.
Yep, typical of theistically infected individuals,
Yes, people like you infected with theism feel the dire need to
impose their fanatical idiocies on others. They're called
"preachers." Atheists/humanists do not need preachers and almost
always look down upon people like you that insist on preaching to
them. It's people like you that give us Atheists a bad name.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 09:42:46 PM |
|
|
"David V." wrote ..
[another effort to preach to disbelievers to
all-but 'shut up']
You have the freedom to campaign for disbelievers
to be quiet. Your position is well-loved by theists of
all stripes. However, you do, on occasion, speak up
in advocacy of disbelief, and in opposition to belief,
oft-times in an insulting manner.
Interesting, your advocacy of disbelief, while at the
same time wanting said disbelief to be expressed
rarely, and briefly.
'Tis why disbelief is marginalized in American society,
the efforts of disbelievers like you to oppose expres-
sions of disbelief that fall outside some arbitrary
standard of near-silence that you've set + the efforts
of theists (like GW Bush and many others) to get their
religion infused into the cultural mainstream, science
courses, schools, etc.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 03:36:29 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
[another effort to preach to disbelievers to all-but 'shut
up']
The problem is your preaching is annoying, dishonest, and inane.
You're giving us a bad name.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 04:40:26 AM |
|
|
"David V." wrote ...
The problem is [...]
Your close-mindedness and proclivity to dictate
to others what your opinion is of limited opposi-
tion to religious faith is obviously unique to a psy-
chological predisposition to do exactly what the-
ists want all disbelievers to do -- 'shut up' about
disbelief or play the disbelief angle in a manner
by which some theists can get away with murder
(and yes, that is going on in this very day within
elements of the islamic faith, and went on quite
profusely in times past by the ruling christian
authorities in Europe, and elsewhere).
The opposition to free speech encompassing
those of your ilk does nothing but embolden
those who wish to toss their religion into every
aspect of society. The rudeness of those of
your ilk does nothing to encourage freethinking,
humanism, or any other positive aspect of civil
discussion.
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <prohumanist@gr8mail.com>
wrote in message news:3652jeF4uch63U1@individual.net...
"David V." wrote ..
[another effort to preach to disbelievers to
all-but 'shut up']
You have the freedom to campaign for disbelievers
to be quiet. Your position is well-loved by theists of
all stripes. However, you do, on occasion, speak up
in advocacy of disbelief, and in opposition to belief,
oft-times in an insulting manner.
Interesting, your advocacy of disbelief, while at the
same time wanting said disbelief to be expressed
rarely, and briefly.
'Tis why disbelief is marginalized in American society,
the efforts of disbelievers like you to oppose expres-
sions of disbelief that fall outside some arbitrary
standard of near-silence that you've set + the efforts
of theists (like GW Bush and many others) to get their
religion infused into the cultural mainstream, science
courses, schools, etc.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 05:15:21 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
The problem is [...]
The problem is you and your annoying preaching.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 07:49:50 PM |
|
|
"David V." ...
The problem is you and your annoying preaching.
Back at you -- theists love you and your kind
when you're preaching (in 'shut up' mode) at
active opponents of alternatives to the anti-
humanism and anti-naturalism endemic to
religious faith.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 12:08:44 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." ...
The problem is you and your annoying preaching.
Back at you
Then to solve the problem; stop preaching.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 02:31:02 AM |
|
|
"David V." wrote ...
Then to solve the problem; stop preaching.
Define preaching, and what it is, exactly, that
you're commanding me to do. Also, describe
why you think being a humanist includes insulting
others, and acting like an authoritarian, something
you've been profuse at, recently.
As for those who appreciate newsgroups used
to discuss matters of interest to some, many,
or everyone, your authoritarian dictates fall far
outside the nature of potentially constructive
and civil human discourse.
If you have the least bit of legitimate interest in
advocacy or discussion of humanism, you'll learn
how to restrain your authoritarian and anti-human-
istic proclivities. The following may help you, as
there's hope, whether well-founded or not, that an
individual like yourself might become much more
adept at civil discourse and actual support of
humanism than you have, 'til now, in our discus-
sions (not that your ignoring most of my posts
and tossing insults and one-liners qualifies as
a discussion, but assuming you do have the
ability to actually ponder matters, and discuss
them civilly, the following may be helpful) ...
American Humanist Association: Humanist Philosophy
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 03:14:24 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
Then to solve the problem; stop preaching.
Define preaching
What you are doing here.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 03:28:04 AM |
|
|
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ..
"David V." wrote ...
Then to solve the problem; stop preaching.
Define preaching
What you are doing here.
No, define it, with words, not with an attempt at
an insult, and address the following questions,
assuming, of course, you do have the ability to
discuss matters, civilly and free of insults.
What is it, exactly, that you're commanding me to
do? Also, describe why you think being a humanist
includes insulting others, and acting like an authori-
tarian, something you've been profuse at, recently.
As for those who appreciate newsgroups used
to discuss matters of interest to some, many,
or everyone, your authoritarian dictates fall far
outside the nature of potentially constructive
and civil human discourse.
If you have the least bit of legitimate interest in
advocacy or discussion of humanism, you'll learn
how to restrain your authoritarian and anti-human-
istic proclivities. The following may help you, as
there's hope, whether well-founded or not, that an
individual like yourself might become much more
adept at civil discourse and actual support of
humanism than you have, 'til now, in our discus-
sions (not that your ignoring most of my posts
and tossing insults and one-liners qualifies as
a discussion, but assuming you do have the
ability to actually ponder matters, and discuss
them civilly, the following may be helpful) ...
American Humanist Association: Humanist Philosophy
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationali
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 06:12:23 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ..
"David V." wrote ...
Then to solve the problem; stop preaching.
Define preaching
What you are doing here.
No
You don't learn quickly do you?
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
