| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"*nemo*" |
| Date: |
27 May 2004 04:16:14 PM |
| Object: |
aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
I'm already ready for a vacation. But it will be close to another month
till I can get away. Drat. Oh well, at least we can all sit back and
enjoy the Quote of the month contests, eh?
Here are the nominations for Theist Quote of the Month for May 2004.
Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, May. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
Email me.
* * * * *
1) For some reason I think athiest just don't want to believe we have a
creator.
By: Osprey
Nominated: Doc Smartass
Seconded: Callipygian Nullifidian
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
------------
3) The rate of sex crimes in the Church is far less than general
society.
By:
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: jwk
------------
4) Oh, yes, and right "machines can detect oxygen and then we can
manipulate it." Well dear, God is a person, not to be manipulated.
However He made a device which can actually recognize God in the world
and in a person. It is called a Human Being. Now you seem to think that
people are hallucinating God as they would Donald Duck on a bad acid
trip. What you fail to logically postulate is that our ability to
hallucinate at all, or dream, or to have out of body experiences, etc.
are indeed physical attributes in the human brain, but they were PUT
there precisely for the act of DETECTING GOD.
By: Anatid Bonecki
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: Liz
------------
5) In response to:
So why weren't the rodents that died in the Great Flood preserved as
fossils?
Deviation tactic, you are not addessing the issue. You can't prove
evoution theory by questioning creational issues.
By: Roadrunner
Nominated: Gregory Gadow
Seconded: Harry F. Leopold
------------
6) You want specific when all you do is regurgitate ignorance?
By: Mary Hogan
Nominated: Sara Brum
Seconded: bogie
------------
7) You're right - I believe in God with evidence You believe in the
romans with roads. I win.
By: duke
Nominated: Iain
Seconded: Vic Sagerquist
------------
8) Right; but we're not talking about whether your or I exist, but
whether the 'collection of everything that exists' exists. You've said
that, if it did not, then 'we would not be here'; and I questioned that
assertion, precisely because I don't see the sense in it myself.
By: George Dance
Nominated: Ron Baker
Seconded: Dixit
------------
9) You might like to start with just thinking. You might improve with
time-say millions and millions of years as in the fairy tales of goo to
you by way of the zoo...
By: IKnowHimDoYou
Nominated: W. Syme
Seconded: Douglas Berry
------------
10) It has nothing to do with data. What data can distinguish between
the 2 hypotheses?? It's a question of *reason*. The materialist
metaphysic only entails p-zombies, not real people.
By: Interesting Ian
Nominated: John M Price PhD
Seconded: Denis Loubet
------------
11) No, evidence does not need to be objective.
By: Interesting Ian
Nominated: John M Price PhD
Seconded: Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here are the rules for the Quote of the Month Contests.
RULES
1. Only atheists and agnostics may participate in the contests.
2. A quote is a valid entry for the contests if:
a. The quote is a brief piece of text;
b. The quote has recently been written in alt.atheism (verifiable);
c. Nomination of the quote is made by an atheist or agnostic
in alt.atheism
d. Nomination of the quote is supported by at least one other
atheist or agnostic in alt.atheism;
e. The quote is not nominated or seconded by the person who wrote it
in
the first place (no one is allowed to nominate him- or herself,
but a person
can vote for the quote he or she wrote.)
3. There will be two categories: 'Atheist Quote of the Month'
and 'Theist Quote of the Month'. The category for which a
quote must be nominated must be mentioned by the atheist or
agnostic who wants to nominate it.
If a quote is miscategorized (e.g. an atheist quote is mistakenly
nominated in the Theist QOTM category), the quote will be re-directed
to appear in the correct category, with approriate notification.
4. Nominations can be made until five days before the first of the
next month. If quotes are nominated after this period, they will be
considered as entries for the contest of the next month.
* When making a nomination, please use this format for the subject
line:
"aa - <A or T as applicable>QOTM Nomination (was: <original thread
name>)"
5. Each atheist or agnostic who visits alt.atheism has one vote to
cast for each category (two votes total).
6. Voting starts 5 days before the end of the month. During the month,
votes will be ignored. This way, all nominees will have equal chance of
winning.
7. The two winning quotes will be published in the QOTM Archive.
SUMMARY
A nomination must contain the following information:
1. The lines of the quote.
2. Who wrote it.
3. Who nominates or seconds the nomination of this quote (that's you!)
4. Which category this nomination is for.
5. The word "nomination" MUST appear somewhere in the subject line!
6. The original thread title must appear in the subject line.
Publish the nomination or support for a nomination in a designated
thread, preferably called "[T/A]QoTM Nomination for [month]." You can
also e-mail it to me (see below).
VOTING
1. In the last five days of the month you can cast your vote in both
categories.
2. Votes must either be placed in the designated thread.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
27 May 2004 10:49:21 PM |
|
|
#11
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
- Psa. 14a
Whoever saith 'thou fool' to his brother shall
be liable to burn in hellfire. - Matt 5:22.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
28 May 2004 12:47:33 PM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
Has to be this one really !
Such honesty !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrD" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
27 May 2004 07:18:53 PM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
Hard to pass this one up.
Good ol Dave, idiot savant.
MrD aa#1119
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
29 May 2004 03:25:04 AM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
3) The rate of sex crimes in the Church is far less than general
society.
By:
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: jwk
For sheer cluelessness, I'll go with this one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
27 May 2004 05:20:01 PM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
For irony in a nutshell, I have to vote for:
5)
Deviation tactic, you are not addessing the issue. You can't prove
evoution theory by questioning creational issues.
By: Roadrunner
Nominated: Gregory Gadow
Seconded: Harry F. Leopold
Ouch!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dummie" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
27 May 2004 11:06:54 PM |
|
|
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
4) Oh, yes, <snip> the human brain, but they were PUT
there precisely for the act of DETECTING GOD.
By: Anatid Bonecki
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: Liz
HAW! HAW! HAW! #4 please!
-------------
-Mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brenda Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
28 May 2004 03:58:42 PM |
|
|
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
I just want to say that this month's offerings make choosing *just
one* very difficult.
1) For some reason I think athiest just don't want to believe we have a
creator.
By: Osprey
Nominated: Doc Smartass
Seconded: Callipygian Nullifidian
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
These two, however, manage to stand out.
Aw, heck, put me down for #2. Pastor Dave deserves the recognition
for this bit of idiocy.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Thearle" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
03 Jun 2004 06:50:27 AM |
|
|
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
This 'un
------------
7) You're right - I believe in God with evidence You believe in the
romans with roads. I win.
By: duke
Nominated: Iain
Seconded: Vic Sagerquist
------------
Roy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
29 May 2004 11:31:49 AM |
|
|
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
snip
Here are the nominations for Theist Quote of the Month for May 2004.
Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, May. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
snip
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
------------
I vote for #2 above.
snip
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here are the rules for the Quote of the Month Contests.
RULES
3. There will be two categories: 'Atheist Quote of the Month'
and 'Theist Quote of the Month'. The category for which a
quote must be nominated must be mentioned by the atheist or
agnostic who wants to nominate it.
If a quote is miscategorized (e.g. an atheist quote is mistakenly
nominated in the Theist QOTM category), the quote will be re-directed
to appear in the correct category, with approriate notification.
What are the criteria for judging a quote to be 'miscategorized'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
30 May 2004 05:17:34 AM |
|
|
In article <6312c50b.0405290831.166b4e22@posting.google.com>,
(George Dance) wrote:
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
snip
Here are the nominations for Theist Quote of the Month for May 2004.
Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, May. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
snip
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
------------
I vote for #2 above.
snip
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here are the rules for the Quote of the Month Contests.
RULES
3. There will be two categories: 'Atheist Quote of the Month'
and 'Theist Quote of the Month'. The category for which a
quote must be nominated must be mentioned by the atheist or
agnostic who wants to nominate it.
If a quote is miscategorized (e.g. an atheist quote is mistakenly
nominated in the Theist QOTM category), the quote will be re-directed
to appear in the correct category, with approriate notification.
What are the criteria for judging a quote to be 'miscategorized'?
Sorry, dude. Being a theist, you're not included in the voting
population.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 09:02:51 AM |
|
|
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<nemo0037-895F6D.06173430052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
In article <6312c50b.0405290831.166b4e22@posting.google.com>,
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
snip
I vote for #2 above.
snip
If a quote is miscategorized (e.g. an atheist quote is mistakenly
nominated in the Theist QOTM category), the quote will be re-directed
to appear in the correct category, with approriate notification.
What are the criteria for judging a quote to be 'miscategorized'?
Sorry, dude. Being a theist, you're not included in the voting
population.
Oh, so you 'categorize' quotes by classifying those quoted into into
'theist' and 'atheist' categories.
Any reason for that classification? For example, do I have to be a
'theist' because I don't have a number, or what?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
29 May 2004 03:19:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 09:31:49 -0700 in episode
<6312c50b.0405290831.166b4e22@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance):
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
snip
Here are the nominations for Theist Quote of the Month for May 2004.
Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, May. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
snip
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already. People
like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
------------
I vote for #2 above.
You're an atheist? How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 10:03:36 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.05.29.20.19.40.690737@hoo.com-amikchi>...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 09:31:49 -0700 in episode
<6312c50b.0405290831.166b4e22@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance):
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<nemo0037-F15335.17161427052004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
snip
Here are the nominations for Theist Quote of the Month for May 2004.
Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, May. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
snip
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already. People
like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
------------
I vote for #2 above.
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been posting to this list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the nominees.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 04:42:47 PM |
|
|
In article <6312c50b.0406020703.7adc88b0@posting.google.com>,
(George Dance) wrote:
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been posting to this
list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the nominees.
You mean nominators.
I apologize for this confusion. I wish you had mentioned this to me
earlier, though. It matters to me a great deal that such trickery as
this doesn't foul up the contest.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 05:57:51 PM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-CA2642.17424602062004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
In article <6312c50b.0406020703.7adc88b0@posting.google.com>,
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been posting to
this
list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the nominees.
You mean nominators.
I apologize for this confusion. I wish you had mentioned this to me
earlier, though. It matters to me a great deal that such trickery as
this doesn't foul up the contest.
Nemo,
My comments:
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
After I made the nomination, George complained.
I related the above, more or less, to him.
I told him that you, nemo, are the judge.
He gave a link to something that was supposed to
be a previous indication of his atheist position.
It was to a web page about string theory cosmology.
A typo? I pointed that out but never saw a
corrected link.
If George had complained to you earlier and you had
asked me I would have related this as
I am now.
If George claims to be an agnostic/atheist then
I just site the above. It doesn't matter to
me beyond that. I can think of no better
or further solution beyond your judgement.
If you were to have thrown the nomination
out just based on general ambiguities, that
would have been fine too.
I've had nominations in the running before and I have
had a nominated win before.
I hope the word 'trickery' was just casually chosen.
Trickery was the farthest thing from my mind.
I think the QOTM contest is pretty cool and
I wouldn't want it fouled up either.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
03 Jun 2004 08:30:46 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<PXsvc.14108$hM4.11575@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-CA2642.17424602062004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
In article <6312c50b.0406020703.7adc88b0@posting.google.com>,
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been posting to
this
list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the nominees.
You mean nominators.
I apologize for this confusion. I wish you had mentioned this to me
earlier, though. It matters to me a great deal that such trickery as
this doesn't foul up the contest.
Nemo,
My comments:
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
Funny, since none of the above deals with deity nor belief. Last I
checked, theism requires both.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
05 Jun 2004 11:37:07 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 3 Jun 2004 06:30:46 -0700, (Jeff
Young) wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<PXsvc.14108$hM4.11575@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-CA2642.17424602062004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
In article <6312c50b.0406020703.7adc88b0@posting.google.com>,
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been posting to
this
list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the nominees.
You mean nominators.
I apologize for this confusion. I wish you had mentioned this to me
earlier, though. It matters to me a great deal that such trickery as
this doesn't foul up the contest.
Nemo,
My comments:
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
Funny, since none of the above deals with deity nor belief. Last I
checked, theism requires both.
Jeff
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists. It's not such an
unfathomable mistake to make.
--
Sincerely,
Uncle Dollar Bill
(aka Bill Shroyer)
_-/\~*-_*\*/~\/-*_*-\*~/\_/*-**\_-\/~*/*-_*\*~\-/*_/*-\*~\_*/-*/*\_-\~
Copyright Notice: Copyright? COPYright? Goodness gracious, mercy me!
I really rather _do_ value art above intellectual property rights. So
these images - unless stated explicitly within the body of the post -
may be freely used in compositions by other artists with two caveats:
1. While I don't demand that you credit me for them (though it would
be nice), I do demand that you never claim these images to be your
own; and 2. No monetary transactions can be involved with their usage.
Other than that, treat them like "Open Source Art". :-)
_-/\~*-_*\*/~\/-*_*-\*~/\_/*-**\_-\/~*/*-_*\*~\-/*_/*-\*~\_*/-*/*\_-\~
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
05 Jun 2004 09:39:46 PM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c4f68a.1911709@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 3 Jun 2004 06:30:46 -0700, (Jeff
Young) wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<PXsvc.14108$hM4.11575@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-CA2642.17424602062004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
In article <6312c50b.0406020703.7adc88b0@posting.google.com>,
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been posting to
this
list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the nominees.
You mean nominators.
I apologize for this confusion. I wish you had mentioned this to me
earlier, though. It matters to me a great deal that such trickery as
this doesn't foul up the contest.
Nemo,
My comments:
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
Funny, since none of the above deals with deity nor belief. Last I
checked, theism requires both.
Jeff
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
It's not such an
unfathomable mistake to make.
As I haven't concluded that yet that this was just a mistake, I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons for that conclusion of yours.
--
Sincerely,
Uncle Dollar Bill
(aka Bill Shroyer)
_-/\~*-_*\*/~\/-*_*-\*~/\_/*-**\_-\/~*/*-_*\*~\-/*_/*-\*~\_*/-*/*\_-\~
Copyright Notice: Copyright? COPYright? Goodness gracious, mercy me!
I really rather _do_ value art above intellectual property rights. So
these images - unless stated explicitly within the body of the post -
may be freely used in compositions by other artists with two caveats:
1. While I don't demand that you credit me for them (though it would
be nice), I do demand that you never claim these images to be your
own; and 2. No monetary transactions can be involved with their usage.
Other than that, treat them like "Open Source Art". :-)
_-/\~*-_*\*/~\/-*_*-\*~/\_/*-**\_-\/~*/*-_*\*~\-/*_/*-\*~\_*/-*/*\_-\~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 12:17:27 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0406051839.1597a0e2@posting.google.com...
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message
news:<40c4f68a.1911709@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 3 Jun 2004 06:30:46 -0700, (Jeff
Young) wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<PXsvc.14108$hM4.11575@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-CA2642.17424602062004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
In article <6312c50b.0406020703.7adc88b0@posting.google.com>,
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been
posting to
this
list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the
nominees.
You mean nominators.
I apologize for this confusion. I wish you had mentioned this to me
earlier, though. It matters to me a great deal that such trickery
as
this doesn't foul up the contest.
Nemo,
My comments:
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge
about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't
exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
Funny, since none of the above deals with deity nor belief. Last I
checked, theism requires both.
Jeff
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
It's not such an
unfathomable mistake to make.
As I haven't concluded that yet that this was just a mistake, I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons for that conclusion of yours.
Oh, please, George. Not a mistake?
What was my ulterior motive?
At the risk of setting a dangerous precedent, I searched
google and found your prior statement of agnosticism
and atheism.
You, indeed, previously declared your atheism.
I acknowledge your prior claim to atheism.
In view of that, the nomination is not valid (however
academic that may now be).
I regret that it happened.
However, I admit no wrong doing.
You presented a theist-like argument.
I also argue that while generally it is easy to estimate
who is theist or not, it is unreasonable to expect all
of us to research all past posts of not-entirely-
unambiguous posters before making a nomination.
Before the ballot was issued I informed you
that Nemo is the judge.
You had the opportunity to appeal before the ballot
was issued.
This could be viewed as a friendly fire incidence.
It has happened to *me* before.
See this example:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(other):
(a). How can a moral God create or permit the creation of such people
given what he knows for a fact, and has *always* known what will
happen to them.
(me:)
I'll repeat my answer from my original response and perhaps
further illuminate it.
"It is certainly contrary to "God's" generally ascribed benevolence
property." And thus it is contrary to the existance of the Christian
god and thus supports my belief that there is no god.
I thank it's about here I say "opps".
(b). How can you give your allegiance to this entity?
I can't. ;)
Well that's ok by me then, he said checking the friendly fire manual.
:)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note how the other poster and I dealt with it.
Note the smiley faces.
I'm sorta inclinded to say:
<Rodney King mode>
Can we all just get along.
</Rodney King mode>
but that perhaps fails to include that, in the future,
I look forward to both
agreeing and disagreeing with you, civilly.
--
RB
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 05:13:33 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <li@topway.net.cn> wrote in message news:<HNxwc.31208$wO4.14437@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0406051839.1597a0e2@posting.google.com...
Oh, please, George. Not a mistake?
What was my ulterior motive?
At the risk of setting a dangerous precedent, I searched
google and found your prior statement of agnosticism
and atheism.
You, indeed, previously declared your atheism.
I acknowledge your prior claim to atheism.
In view of that, the nomination is not valid (however
academic that may now be).
I regret that it happened.
However, I admit no wrong doing.
You presented a theist-like argument.
I also argue that while generally it is easy to estimate
who is theist or not, it is unreasonable to expect all
of us to research all past posts of not-entirely-
unambiguous posters before making a nomination.
Before the ballot was issued I informed you
that Nemo is the judge.
You had the opportunity to appeal before the ballot
was issued.
This could be viewed as a friendly fire incidence.
It has happened to *me* before.
Tell you what; nominate me for an AQOTM in June, and I'll admit that
you more than compensated me.
Here's a quote that I think deserves a wider circulation, in an
election year, than it appears to have have received so far:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6312c50b.0406040647.4e20a516%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
<snip example>
Note how the other poster and I dealt with it.
Note the smiley faces.
I'm sorta inclinded to say:
<Rodney King mode>
Can we all just get along.
</Rodney King mode>
but that perhaps fails to include that, in the future,
I look forward to both
agreeing and disagreeing with you, civilly.
I'm sure we will, in the future, but right now I'm still mad as hell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
10 Jun 2004 11:02:44 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0406061413.38815ab6@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <li@topway.net.cn> wrote in message
news:<HNxwc.31208$wO4.14437@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0406051839.1597a0e2@posting.google.com...
Oh, please, George. Not a mistake?
What was my ulterior motive?
At the risk of setting a dangerous precedent, I searched
google and found your prior statement of agnosticism
and atheism.
You, indeed, previously declared your atheism.
I acknowledge your prior claim to atheism.
In view of that, the nomination is not valid (however
academic that may now be).
I regret that it happened.
However, I admit no wrong doing.
You presented a theist-like argument.
I also argue that while generally it is easy to estimate
who is theist or not, it is unreasonable to expect all
of us to research all past posts of not-entirely-
unambiguous posters before making a nomination.
Before the ballot was issued I informed you
that Nemo is the judge.
You had the opportunity to appeal before the ballot
was issued.
This could be viewed as a friendly fire incidence.
It has happened to *me* before.
Tell you what; nominate me for an AQOTM in June, and I'll admit that
you more than compensated me.
I'll nominate you if you say something worth nominating,
not as compensation.
Here's a quote that I think deserves a wider circulation, in an
election year, than it appears to have have received so far:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6312c50b.0406040647.4e20a516%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
<snip example>
Note how the other poster and I dealt with it.
Note the smiley faces.
I'm sorta inclinded to say:
<Rodney King mode>
Can we all just get along.
</Rodney King mode>
but that perhaps fails to include that, in the future,
I look forward to both
agreeing and disagreeing with you, civilly.
I'm sure we will, in the future, but right now I'm still mad as hell.
--
RB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 11:38:03 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 5 Jun 2004 19:39:46 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c4f68a.1911709@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 3 Jun 2004 06:30:46 -0700, (Jeff
Young) wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<PXsvc.14108$hM4.11575@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-CA2642.17424602062004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
In article <6312c50b.0406020703.7adc88b0@posting.google.com>,
(George Dance) wrote:
You're an atheist?
Yep; as I've been careful to state, in the 2 years I've been posting to
this
list.
How do you have a quote (#8) in the running for
TQOTM then?
You'd have to ask Ron Baker and Dixit/Skeptic; they're the nominees.
You mean nominators.
I apologize for this confusion. I wish you had mentioned this to me
earlier, though. It matters to me a great deal that such trickery as
this doesn't foul up the contest.
Nemo,
My comments:
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
Funny, since none of the above deals with deity nor belief. Last I
checked, theism requires both.
Jeff
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
It's not such an
unfathomable mistake to make.
As I haven't concluded that yet that this was just a mistake, I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons for that conclusion of yours.
It's called "experience".
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 03:27:51 PM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c44844.1422212@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 5 Jun 2004 19:39:46 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c4f68a.1911709@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 3 Jun 2004 06:30:46 -0700, (Jeff
Young) wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<PXsvc.14108$hM4.11575@twister.socal.rr.com>...
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
Funny, since none of the above deals with deity nor belief. Last I
checked, theism requires both.
Jeff
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
It's not such an
unfathomable mistake to make.
As I haven't concluded that yet that this was just a mistake, I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons for that conclusion of yours.
It's called "experience".
I'd call it something else, myself; but never mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 06:34:05 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 6 Jun 2004 13:27:51 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c44844.1422212@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 5 Jun 2004 19:39:46 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c4f68a.1911709@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 3 Jun 2004 06:30:46 -0700, (Jeff
Young) wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<PXsvc.14108$hM4.11575@twister.socal.rr.com>...
I was in an exchange with George.
I had no memory of seeing him declare his atheism.
He made the "Cosmological Argument" for the 'non-physical'.
When I asked him about this 'non-physical' he
asserted that it existed but that he had absolutely no knowledge about
any of its properties.
He equivocated on 'talk' and 'claim' vs 'conclude'.
Then I saw that "'collection of everything that exists' doesn't exist"
statement.
Overall, I was sure I was dealing with a theist.
Funny, since none of the above deals with deity nor belief. Last I
checked, theism requires both.
Jeff
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
Well, as you can see, I do. Thanks for checking it out.
It's not such an
unfathomable mistake to make.
As I haven't concluded that yet that this was just a mistake, I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons for that conclusion of yours.
It's called "experience".
I'd call it something else, myself; but never mind.
That's okay, anyone in denial of plain, obvious reality has an opinion
which means "less than nothing to me". ;-*
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
07 Jun 2004 10:20:05 AM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40cfa9b2.26367400@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 6 Jun 2004 13:27:51 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
Well, as you can see, I do. Thanks for checking it out.
No, I can't see any such thing. All I can see is that you're claiming
you have 'evidence' and insisting that we 'have to admit' that it's
conclusive, but not backing up your claim.
It's not such an
unfathomable mistake to make.
As I haven't concluded that yet that this was just a mistake, I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons for that conclusion of yours.
It's called "experience".
I'd call it something else, myself; but never mind.
That's okay, anyone in denial of plain, obvious reality has an opinion
which means "less than nothing to me". ;-*
Now, that sounds like something theists do say, quite often.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
07 Jun 2004 08:11:05 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 7 Jun 2004 08:20:05 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40cfa9b2.26367400@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 6 Jun 2004 13:27:51 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
Well, as you can see, I do. Thanks for checking it out.
No, I can't see any such thing. All I can see is that you're claiming
you have 'evidence' and insisting that we 'have to admit' that it's
conclusive, but not backing up your claim.
Fine, if you want to claim that you've never heard of a theist
speaking of non-physical realities, so be it. I have no problem with
you choosing to look like an idiot. :-)
<snip>
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
08 Jun 2004 11:38:42 AM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c511c0.290966@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 7 Jun 2004 08:20:05 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40cfa9b2.26367400@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 6 Jun 2004 13:27:51 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
Well, as you can see, I do. Thanks for checking it out.
No, I can't see any such thing. All I can see is that you're claiming
you have 'evidence' and insisting that we 'have to admit' that it's
conclusive, but not backing up your claim.
Fine, if you want to claim that you've never heard of a theist
speaking of non-physical realities, so be it.
I wondered when you'd start waffling on your original claim. I'll
just point out that you are waffling - "Some theists talk about X" is
not the same claim as "Virtually 100% of those who talk about X are
theists."
For example, it's true that many theists talk about free will. But
it's not true that virtually 100% of those who talk about free will
are theists - that's simply an unjustified smear that some
determinists like to use to frighten non-theists away from questioning
their assertions.
The exact same type of unjustified smear tactic that you're trying
here, I note.
I have no problem with
you choosing to look like an idiot. :-)
Well, I do have a problem with those who actually choose to be idiots,
such as your ilk. I'll be monitoring your posts in the future, to see
if you try this type of crap on anyone else.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
08 Jun 2004 12:44:58 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c511c0.290966@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 7 Jun 2004 08:20:05 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40cfa9b2.26367400@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 6 Jun 2004 13:27:51 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
Well, as you can see, I do. Thanks for checking it out.
No, I can't see any such thing. All I can see is that you're claiming
you have 'evidence' and insisting that we 'have to admit' that it's
conclusive, but not backing up your claim.
Fine, if you want to claim that you've never heard of a theist
speaking of non-physical realities, so be it.
I wondered when you'd start waffling on your original claim. I'll
just point out that you are waffling - "Some theists talk about X" is
not the same claim as "Virtually 100% of those who talk about X are
theists."
For example, it's true that many theists talk about free will. But
it's not true that virtually 100% of those who talk about free will
are theists - that's simply an unjustified smear that some
determinists like to use to frighten non-theists away from questioning
their assertions.
The exact same type of unjustified smear tactic that you're trying
here, I note.
I have no problem with
you choosing to look like an idiot. :-)
Well, I do have a problem with those who actually choose to be idiots,
such as your ilk. I'll be monitoring your posts in the future, to see
if you try this type of crap on anyone else.
How is it "crap" to question or deny you theists' unsupported
proposition that things not physical, like God, the hypothetical first
cause for example, might exist?
And George Dance is definitely theist. He himself says so:
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
08 Jun 2004 03:22:55 PM |
|
|
In article <uWmxc.57495$3x.36757@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message
news:<40c511c0.290966@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 7 Jun 2004 08:20:05 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message
news:<40cfa9b2.26367400@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 6 Jun 2004 13:27:51 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
Well, as you can see, I do. Thanks for checking it out.
No, I can't see any such thing. All I can see is that you're claiming
you have 'evidence' and insisting that we 'have to admit' that it's
conclusive, but not backing up your claim.
Fine, if you want to claim that you've never heard of a theist
speaking of non-physical realities, so be it.
I wondered when you'd start waffling on your original claim. I'll
just point out that you are waffling - "Some theists talk about X" is
not the same claim as "Virtually 100% of those who talk about X are
theists."
For example, it's true that many theists talk about free will. But
it's not true that virtually 100% of those who talk about free will
are theists - that's simply an unjustified smear that some
determinists like to use to frighten non-theists away from questioning
their assertions.
The exact same type of unjustified smear tactic that you're trying
here, I note.
I have no problem with
you choosing to look like an idiot. :-)
Well, I do have a problem with those who actually choose to be idiots,
such as your ilk. I'll be monitoring your posts in the future, to see
if you try this type of crap on anyone else.
How is it "crap" to question or deny you theists'...
It is 'crap' to assert that stating a belief incompatible with theism
makes one a theist.
George say a God MIGHT exist, which includes the possibility that no God
might exist, which possibility is anathema to any true theist.
If anyone who believes that no God might exist is theist, then it
follows that Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is as theist as
the Pope.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
10 Jun 2004 10:24:18 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 8 Jun 2004 09:38:42 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40c511c0.290966@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 7 Jun 2004 08:20:05 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<40cfa9b2.26367400@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 6 Jun 2004 13:27:51 -0700,
(George Dance) wrote:
But you have to admit, virtually 100% of the time when someone makes
those sorts of statements, they're theists.
Any examples? One, even?
If you really care, do your own research. Usenet's archives are
available for all to see.
I didn't think you had anything.
Well, as you can see, I do. Thanks for checking it out.
No, I can't see any such thing. All I can see is that you're claiming
you have 'evidence' and insisting that we 'have to admit' that it's
conclusive, but not backing up your claim.
Fine, if you want to claim that you've never heard of a theist
speaking of non-physical realities, so be it.
I wondered when you'd start waffling on your original claim. I'll
just point out that you are waffling - "Some theists talk about X" is
not the same claim as "Virtually 100% of those who talk about X are
theists."
For example, it's true that many theists talk about free will. But
it's not true that virtually 100% of those who talk about free will
are theists - that's simply an unjustified smear that some
determinists like to use to frighten non-theists away from questioning
their assertions.
The exact same type of unjustified smear tactic that you're trying
here, I note.
I have no problem with
you choosing to look like an idiot. :-)
Well, I do have a problem with those who actually choose to be idiots,
such as your ilk. I'll be monitoring your posts in the future, to see
if you try this type of crap on anyone else.
Look, dude, you wanna' be so pissy and upset about this? Fine, be my
guest. I really couldn't care less. I suppose if I've mis-stated
anything, it's this: I've never heard anyone who is not a theist speak
of non-physical realms. Fine, I'll admit that doesn't equate to
"virtually 100% of those who..." and so I mis-spoke. Does that make
you happy?
Either way, the resentment with which you've pursued this rather
simple affair and the deep personal insult you appear to feel based
upon your replies is just a bit over the top. Lighten up, you aren't
doing yourself any favors by looking for reasons to bear grudges
against complete strangers. If anything, you're looking for an ulcer.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
