| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Erica" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2003 06:07:24 PM |
| Object: |
One day, down at the pub... |
....there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion. I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be interrupted
mid-sentence. It didn't help that I had laryngitis and was trying to
shout over this person's interruptions.
Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case? And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
Erica
.
|
|
| User: "The Holy Kafir" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 09:11:49 PM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dfe32b8.0311051607.37f969f4@posting.google.com...
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion. I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
Proof he doesn't understand logic, end of story.
It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be interrupted
mid-sentence. It didn't help that I had laryngitis and was trying to
shout over this person's interruptions.
Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case? And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
Erica
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 11:23:52 PM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dfe32b8.0311051607.37f969f4@posting.google.com...
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion. I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
I can see the guy's logic.
As I understand it, the existance or non-existiance of god can not be
proven.
(Is it epistemologically accepted that nothing can be proven?)
Using our perception, logic, and reason we conclude
that there is no god.
If the non-existance of god can not be proven then
the validity of our perception, logic, and reason is not proven.
Definition 2b in my dictionary for faith is "firm belief in something
for which there is no proof"
Atheism is faith.
But then belief in reality is also faith by the same argument.
There is a sematic argument lurking here.
Semantically traditional religious faith could be
argued to be different from the faith described above.
I would also argue (not to that closed minded guy) that
atheist faith is based on harder and more objective
evidence.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
Well, there is plenty o' debatin' goin' on here all the time,
but it sounds like that guy just plain wasn't
interested in debating.
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
In that context, I would take his word for it.
Even if (or especially if) you had a wonderful point just waiting it
was obvious he wasn't interested.
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
Oh, now, that is utter nonsense.
What possibility? That god exists? If someone can
prove it we sure would like to hear.
Sounds like a reverse psychology ad baculum.
"Those damn atheists know better than to ask for proof because
they're afraid we might just show them."
It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be interrupted
mid-sentence.
So don't talk to him (unless he turns you on ;).
It didn't help that I had laryngitis and was trying to
shout over this person's interruptions.
Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case?
You did fine. You were out for fun, not to
fix the world.
Atheism shouldn't be a crusade.. at least not a frontal
challenge but a campaign of stealthy enlightenment.
I like the socratic method. Rather than point out
the inconsistancies in someone elses statement
I prefer to ask them questions that make them
think about the inconsistancies.
For some the light will come on and they will
say Ahhh.
Sometimes I haven't understood what they said.
Some will be disconcerted that there is a hole in
their view and become silent while they think.
Some will become angry that you have injured
their truth. If you honestly seek to understand
their view they have no right to be angry.
And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
Erica
-Ron
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 06:48:14 PM |
|
|
(Erica) said:
....
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion. I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
Sounds like a troll to me.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 01:40:10 PM |
|
|
(Erica) wrote in message news:<6dfe32b8.0311051607.37f969f4@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
Hmm. There seems to be a tendency among Christians to think that being
unconvinced (i.e. "not believing") equals being closed to
possibilities.
You could try pointing out that someone who is merely open to a
possibility is clearly not yet a believer. Therefore, someone who is
open to the possibility that a god exists doesn't actually believe in
a god yet, and therefore is an atheist. I'd be curious to know what
else he would call such a person.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 07:52:24 AM |
|
|
(Erica) wrote in message news:<6dfe32b8.0311051607.37f969f4@posting.google.com>...
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion. I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be interrupted
mid-sentence. It didn't help that I had laryngitis and was trying to
shout over this person's interruptions.
Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case? And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
Erica
Wouldn't have said a word. After the second interruption I would have
just turned away. If he was stupid enough to complain THEN he would
have gotten an earfull on rude behavior.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 09:49:49 PM |
|
|
(Erica) wrote in message news:<6dfe32b8.0311051607.37f969f4@posting.google.com>...
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
You do realize, don't you, that you're asking us to help you deal
with someone with whom you are more likely to sleep than any of us,
or at least not less likely?
Let it never be said that atheists cannot be altruistic.
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
That's the No True Scotsman fallacy, and it goes like this:
A: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porrige.
B: My friend McTavish puts sugar on his porrige.
A: Well, then, he's not a True Scotsman.
It's basically a way of coming to a conclusion with little thought and
with cheerful denial of reality, most suitable for the tiny-brained.
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case?
Probably about as well as could have been expected.
And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
I would have laughed a lot and said, "You're funny!" and kept
what we in the States call a "*****-eating grin" on my face.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 09:20:05 PM |
|
|
(Erica) wrote in news:6dfe32b8.0311051607.37f969f4
@posting.google.com:
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion.
Some atheists say there are no gods. That is still not a religion. It is
simply an empirical statement based on experience of the real world. It
is no different to saying there are no leprechauns. All you have to do to
get the atheist to change their minds is to present convincing evidence.
If a supremely powerful supernatural being (or even a moderately powered
one ) wanted to demonstrate their existance to atheists, such being would
know what was required to do that job. The fact that atheists exist
proves that the christian gods, don't exist.
Llanzlan.
<SNIP remaining rubbish>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 06:56:20 PM |
|
|
(Erica) wrote:
=...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when
=I got into a conversation with one of the other players.
=I mentioned I'd been hanging out in an atheist newsgroup
=and how it was stretching my mind in good ways.
=
=Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and
=white kind of guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one
=with liberal interpretations like me. That's what it sounded
=like when I talked to him later, anyway.
"Liberal interpretation" = "typical salad bar xtian"
=Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you
=agree or you don't get to talk.
Then it's pointless.
=Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion
=that I was trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly.
=He said that atheism was a belief in no gods, and that
=made it a religion. I started to say that most of the atheists
=on this group would disagree with that definition, instead
=saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he stuck by
=his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
=of God.
That's perfect. He can define "atheist", and I'll define "god".
=Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought
=to myself. I mentioned that several of the atheists on the
=group would get into discussions with Christians over the
=existence of God, on my way to the "an atheist doesn't
=have to prove a negative" assertion.
You don't even have to go that far. Some (most?) atheists
don't make any kind of claims about god(s)'s existence(s).
We ask for evidence to substantiate the Believer's claim.
=But before I could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing
=to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
That's true, in a way. To a theist, THERE IS A GOD.
But... is there evidence?
=I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates
=(perhaps the wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going
=on in the group, where atheists would ask the Christians
=for proof of their God. I was headed for the "can't prove
=a negative" point again, when he interrupted again with,
="There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO
=GOD."
Be careful using that "can't prove a negative" approach.
I can think of several examples -- there are no $100 bills
in my pocket, there are no elk in my refrigerator, etc., etc.
=I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there
=were indeed discussions going on, he said, "Then they're
=not true atheists. An atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That
=would be leaving themselves open to the possibility."
The discussions mainly deal with the nature of "evidence",
what is meant by a "god", and general things, AFAIK.
=It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be
=interrupted mid-sentence. It didn't help that I had laryngitis
=and was trying to shout over this person's interruptions.
=
=Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
=
=Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what
=you thought. How'd I do in stating the case? And what
=would you have said to him? (Aside from "You're a moron,"
=of course. That's assumed.)
I would have stopped him when he defined atheism
and asked what made him qualified to do so.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the
vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood
of the wicked." - Psalms 58:10
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 06:33:28 PM |
|
|
"Mike Smith" <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in message
news:9e6jqvcj6jv67mj4us1gioem5o9t2hke3q@4ax.com...
Be careful using that "can't prove a negative" approach.
I can think of several examples -- there are no $100 bills
in my pocket, there are no elk in my refrigerator, etc., etc.
Those are location statements, not existential statements like "God exists."
Clue: $100 bills and elk are known to exist.
So this argument has logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under
discussion.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
There is no way for a mortal to prove "There might be a God" is false.
Knowing it is false would require omniscience, and demonstrating that
knowledge to any of the mortals located on Earth would require omnipotence.
You would have to grant them omniscience long enough for them to know the
statement is false.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 01:31:51 AM |
|
|
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in message news:<9e6jqvcj6jv67mj4us1gioem5o9t2hke3q@4ax.com>...
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote:
=
=Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and
=white kind of guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one
=with liberal interpretations like me. That's what it sounded
=like when I talked to him later, anyway.
"Liberal interpretation" = "typical salad bar xtian"
Oh good. I was on a diet anyway.
One course at a time, my dear. One course at a time. Can't digest it
all at once you know (the OT gives me indigestion, for instance).
What can I say. Conservative and Fundamentalist Christians give me the
hebbie geebies. When I look at them, I see very little that's
Christlike. Your view, looking at it from a different direction, is
radically different I know. But I wouldn't be a Christian if I hadn't
first thought that this Jesus fellow sounded like a pretty cool guy.
Also, if God is love, then liberal is where I find the love, ie heart.
=Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you
=agree or you don't get to talk.
Then it's pointless.
Yeppers. I have GOT to stay out of these conversations with this guy.
It's mostly a lecture really.
It was just interesting being on the other side of the discussion for
once.
Erica
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 10:22:34 PM |
|
|
Erica wrote:
[...]
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I
was trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that
atheism was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion.
"If atheism is a religion, the bald is a hair color." Sure,
it's just bumper-sticker fodder, but until Pauly learns to have
a conversation instead of a shouting match, he doesn't deserve more.
I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but
he stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the
non-existence of God.
And not proving the non-existence of God makes atheism a religion
how, exactly? I guess what Pauly is saying is (strong) atheists
believe that God definitely does not exist, but cannot prove it.
He's defining religion as believing anything without proof.
He must not realize how worthless that makes the idea of religion.
Using that definition, then, sure, believing there are no gods is
my "religion". It's also my "religion" that there will be an
engine under my car's hood when I turn the key tomorrow morning.
So what?
Of course, that assumes atheists really can't prove the
non-existence of God. Gods in general are too hard, mostly because
there are too many definitions of "god", some of which are clearly
intended as dodges away from any disproof.
With the Christian God, it's a different story, though, and I
presume you and he were talking about Him. There are many common
conceptions that simply do not hold up to any examination. A common
response to that is say faith means believing even when we don't
understand -- so what's that mean? Atheists can't disprove such a
God to him because he refuses to look at the argument?
Whoop-de-doo.
Here a short, common disproof of the Christian God:
All-knowing + all-powerful + all-good + allowing evil = No such God
[...]
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were
indeed discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true
atheists. An atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be
leaving themselves open to the possibility."
"Not true atheists" Cute. Of course, that makes things easy
for Pauly. Things are the way he says they are _by definition_.
He doesn't have to do anything like opening his eyes and
looking around.
Of course it would be too easy for us to tell him he's
"not a true Christian." We would have more support on our side,
too. You've got the Bible, with some very clear instructions.
Some very-hard-to-follow instructions, but very clear, for
all that. Want to bet he hasn't screwed up anywhere?
If he's got a copy of the Atheist Handbook, I want to know
why I didn't get mine.
As for "being open to the possibility", there are a large
number of atheists who started out not only "open to the
possibility" of God existing, but believing in Him
completely. I'm an example of this, if you need one. I'm
sure there are plenty of others.
If he's got proof -- no, if he's got evidence, any evidence,
tell him to get in touch. But, wait -- I'm not a true atheist.
OK, ask Pauly what god I believe in. I'm kind of curious.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 11:23:33 AM |
|
|
Erica wrote:
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case? And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
Personally, I would simply reply "I'm sorry, but you have no idea
what you are talking about."
And I'd repeat those exact words to every close-minded idiotic
statement he made on the matter.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 12:39:34 PM |
|
|
On 05 Nov 2003, (Erica) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:6dfe32b8.0311051607.37f969f4@posting.google.com:
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion. I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be interrupted
mid-sentence. It didn't help that I had laryngitis and was trying to
shout over this person's interruptions.
Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case? And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
Erica
Infuriating, isn't it? :D
And people like this wonder why we're so "mean" to them when they come
barging into our NG...
Anyway, the "You can't prove a negative" argument is a good start, but
not really solid. You *can* prove a negative (there is no fire-
breathing dragon in my jacket pocket -- I just checked, and nope, none
there). This argument is often used in the sense that you generally
can't prove a universal negative.
However, a much better, related argument is as follows:
When a person makes an unproven claim -- any unproven claim -- he/she is
not entitled to demand or expect agreement with his claim until and
unless he produces objective evidence in support of that claim.
Thus, theists are not entitled to demand or expect agreement with their
claim until they produce objective evidence. Likewise, "strong"
atheists (those who claim that gods are impossible or profess dogmatic
faith in the godlessness of reality) are not entitled to demand or
expect agreement with their claim.
The fallacy occurs when a person making a claim (say, a theist) demands
that a person who does not agree with their claim (an atheist, perhaps)
present evidence that their claim is false, in order to justify
disagreement with their claim.
If this were a reasonable demand, you would have to believe, for
example, that there are multiple alternate universes that we cannot
detect, and simultaneously believe that there are no such alternate
universes, because both could be claimed and you cannot disprove either.
You see the problem?
So, next time you talk to him, start a conversation something along the
following lines:
"You disagree with the strong atheist position (that no god(s) can
possibly exist), do you not?"
"Yes. Yes, of course, I do. That's utterly ridiculous."
"Ah! But, can you PROVE it? Can you PROVE that god(s) can in fact
exist? No? Why then, it seems -- by your own reasoning -- that your
opinion that they're wrong is a baseless, irrational conviction. Also,
any opinion that god(s) *can't* exist is similarly baseless and
irrational. It appears that you'll have to start believing that god(s)
both can and cannot exist, simultaneously! Wow, good thing I caught
that before you ended up believing something illogical, huh?"
If he objects, simply point out that the whole difficulty can be avoided
by allowing that those who simply do not accept someone else's claim
have no burden to prove that the other person's claim is false, and
cannot be pigeonholed as making a positive claim that the opposite is
true.
But... meh. It's almost certainly pointless.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 04:41:47 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942B80C904F42Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
... You *can* prove a negative ...
Not the negative of an existential statement. To know that would require
omniscience, and to demonstrate that knowledge omnipotence would be
required.
Fortunately nobody ever has to demonstrate the negation of an existential
proposition since shifting the burden of proof to the negation is always
logical fallacy. The only reasonable presumption in any case is that any
existential proposition of the form, "An X might exist" is false. The
reasonable presumption stands forever, or until knocked down by some
evidence of X (whatever X is imagined to be).
(there is no fire-
breathing dragon in my jacket pocket -- I just checked, and nope, none
there). ...
"Dragon in this pocket" is a location proposition. "Dragons might exist" is
the existential proposition concerning dragons.
I just checked with the theists to see how many gods they could demonstrate
now, and nope, none there, there are no gods.
"There might be an invisible god" is the existential proposition concerning
gods. That is what stands in need of supporting evidence. The denial
(negation in logic), "There are no gods" is not an existential proposition
standing in need of evidence, it is a universal statement (a statement about
the universe). It means that "There might be an invisible god" has not been
proven true since there are no gods in evidence.
"There are no gods" is the only reasonable answer when one is asked, "How
many gods are there by your count?"
You cannot shift the burden of proof to the non-believers as you are trying
to do, saying that the universal statement, "There are no gods" stands in
need of proof. Trying to shift the burden of proof under any pretext, or
even arguing that there is no proof the proposition that an invisible god
might exist is false, is always logical fallacy. OK?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 11:06:26 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2003 16:07:24 -0800, (Erica)
wrote:
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion.
There are people like that, I have met several who state that God
does not exist without any pretense of rationality. I met one
woman who openly declared that her attitude was more or less the
same as that of most believers in God, just that her belief was
opposite to theirs.
And some groups of atheists - 2 examples being Marxists and some
of the followers off Ayn Rand - might be described as having a
religion, since they appear to have faith based beliefs which
they relate to in a similar way to many religious believers.
Though having said that, I would disagree with him as much as
most of the regulars here.
I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
I don't believe that many concepts can be properly captured by a
definition. The definition 'lack of belief in God' is not bad -
but it goes further than that. People who describe themselves as
atheists almost always say something like:
'There is no God',
or:
'The concept of God makes no sense'
or:
"I do not know for certain there is no God, but I don't take
the idea very seriously'.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
He thinks that the only true atheists are dogmatic, closed minded
people who never discuss religion? Does he actually know any
atheists?
It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be interrupted
mid-sentence. It didn't help that I had laryngitis and was trying to
shout over this person's interruptions.
Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
Blackcurrent juice is good for a sore throat.
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case? And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
Tell him how nice we are :)
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 08:37:26 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2003 16:07:24 -0800, (Erica) posted in
alt.atheism:
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
That's the end of the discussion. Anything that follows is a monolog,
whether you agree with him or not. If you're into that kind of thing
it could be interesting, I guess.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
05 Nov 2003 08:28:35 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2003 16:07:24 -0800, (Erica) wrote:
...there I was playing trivia and having an ale, when I got into a
conversation with one of the other players. I mentioned I'd been
hanging
out in an atheist newsgroup and how it was stretching my mind in good
ways.
Well, this fellow, Pauly is his name, is a very black and white kind
of
guy. He seemed to be a Christian, but one with liberal interpretations
like me. That's what it sounded like when I talked to him later,
anyway.
Nevertheless, he thinks what he thinks, and either you agree or you
don't get to talk.
Anyway, he made several assertions during the discussion that I was
trying to defend on your behalf, probably badly. He said that atheism
was a belief in no gods, and that made it a religion.
Even IF atheism was a belief that there were no gods - that alone
would not make it a religion - a religion is much more than a single
belief.
A religion is a system of beliefs and practices(prayer, meditation
giving to the poor, pilgrimage etc) that tells you how you fit into
the world.
Atheism is either the ABSECE of a particular kind of belief or the
belief that some other belief is wrong - either way one pebble does
not a mountain range make.
I started to say
that most of the atheists on this group would disagree with that
definition, instead saying that atheism was a lack of belief, but he
stuck by his definition, as you guys couldn't prove the non-existence
of
God.
He is right that we cannot prove that God doesn't exist - but that is
irrelevant to whether or not atheism is a belief or the absence of a
belief.
He is right that we cant prove that God doesn't exist but who or what
says we need to?
Its a red herring.
Hrm, I know what an atheist would say to that, I thought to myself. I
mentioned that several of the atheists on the group would get into
discussions with Christians over the existence of God, on my way to
the
"an atheist doesn't have to prove a negative" assertion. But before I
could get that far, Pauly said, "There's nothing to debate. To an
atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
Again he is kind of right - to an atheist there is no God.
So how does that make it a religion? It Doesn't.
So how does that mean we have to prove the non existence of God? It
Doesn't.
He keeps saying things which have no bearing - no connection to the
other things he asserts.
"If I buy Kippers on tuesday it will not rain" - what's the connection
between the one and the other?
I started to say that nevertheless, there were debates (perhaps the
wrong word -- confrontations perhaps) going on in the group, where
atheists would ask the Christians for proof of their God. I was headed
for the "can't prove a negative" point again, when he interrupted
again
with, "There's nothing to debate. To an atheist, THERE IS NO GOD."
Not everyone thinks the cant prove a negative thing is such a crash
hot idea.
Go back one step - why do we have to prove the non existence of God?
Because he says so?
Who made him Emperor of the universe?
I said that you guys would likely disagree, since there were indeed
discussions going on, he said, "Then they're not true atheists. An
atheist wouldn't ask for proof. That would be leaving themselves open
to
the possibility."
Well some atheist DONT ask for proof.
Me, for example.
I am not hangiing out desperately waiting for anyone to prove
anything.
I dont have any reason to believe a God exists - so I dont.
If someone has a "proof" they want me to look at I will give it a look
- but I am not expecting one to "pop up" after the worlds greatest
minds have failed to produce one in thousands of years of trying.
If they want to believe in God - fine, go ahead - just dont try and
force me to OBEY the laws of HIS imaginary friend if he cant back it
with anything other than personal conviction.
Live and let Live.
That's my motto.
Believe what you like as long as I dont have to suffer the
consequences.
Keep your god to yourself and there is no problem.
It was maddening, mostly because really, really hate to be interrupted
mid-sentence. It didn't help that I had laryngitis and was trying to
shout over this person's interruptions.
Now I can't talk and its ALL YOUR FAULT!! <g>
Just thought I'd tell youse guys about that, and see what you thought.
How'd I do in stating the case? And what would you have said to him?
(Aside from "You're a moron," of course. That's assumed.)
8-)
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least until *he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him next time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 03:34:20 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least until *he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him next time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again. Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does have a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I hate it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
But then again this guy also said it was okay to hope an atheist would
go to hell, so he wouldn't have to spend an eternity with that person.
"I don't want you to believe, and neither does Jesus." Feel the love
(plech).
Erica
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 07:59:46 AM |
|
|
(Erica) wrote in message news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least until *he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him next time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again. Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does have a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I hate it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would laugh at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray for us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".) The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 09:16:03 AM |
|
|
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
(jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least until *he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him next time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again. Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does have a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I hate it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would laugh at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray for us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even though he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man, that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 12:51:39 PM |
|
|
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scribe53151nospam-25EBA3.09160306112003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least until *he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him next time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again. Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does have a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I hate it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would laugh at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray for us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even though he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man, that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
:) I didn't realize before that you were a xian. That's a
compliment, btw, that I didn't *realize it. Most xians in this NG
make a point of it.
A point: you don't have to refer to this NG as "you people". That's
for people like duke and Randy. A reasonable xian who spends any time
here is still "one of us". (Not an atheist, but a regular.) At least
I feel so. Anybody opposed?
jwk
Not that all the atheists here are reasonable. I know I ***** people
off regurally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
06 Nov 2003 06:33:28 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311061051.270c9f1a@posting.google.com...
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<scribe53151nospam-25EBA3.09160306112003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least until
*he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him next
time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again. Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does have
a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I hate
it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would laugh at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray for us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even though he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man, that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
:) I didn't realize before that you were a xian. That's a
compliment, btw, that I didn't *realize it. Most xians in this NG
make a point of it.
A point: you don't have to refer to this NG as "you people". That's
for people like duke and Randy. A reasonable xian who spends any time
here is still "one of us". (Not an atheist, but a regular.) At least
I feel so. Anybody opposed?
Not me. Usenet was set up originally as a free-for-all, and it still is, at
least unmoderated groups like this one are, and all the better for
encouraging the practice of freedom of speech worldwide, in my opinion.
Anyroad, I kind of have the hots a little bit for Erica. Wonder what pub she
frequents. 8^)
jwk
Not that all the atheists here are reasonable. I know I ***** people
off regurally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
07 Nov 2003 08:21:53 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sLBqb.131217$HS4.1034321@attbi_s01>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311061051.270c9f1a@posting.google.com...
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<scribe53151nospam-25EBA3.09160306112003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least until
*he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him next
time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again. Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does have
a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I hate
it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would laugh at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray for us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even though he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man, that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
:) I didn't realize before that you were a xian. That's a
compliment, btw, that I didn't *realize it. Most xians in this NG
make a point of it.
A point: you don't have to refer to this NG as "you people". That's
for people like duke and Randy. A reasonable xian who spends any time
here is still "one of us". (Not an atheist, but a regular.) At least
I feel so. Anybody opposed?
Not me. Usenet was set up originally as a free-for-all, and it still is, at
least unmoderated groups like this one are, and all the better for
encouraging the practice of freedom of speech worldwide, in my opinion.
Anyroad, I kind of have the hots a little bit for Erica.
Really? Do you know what she looks like even? (Sorry, I'm shallow
enough to at least need to see someone before getting the hots. I'll
admit I'd like to know though.)
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
07 Nov 2003 05:16:41 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311070621.5cca223d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<sLBqb.131217$HS4.1034321@attbi_s01>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311061051.270c9f1a@posting.google.com...
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<scribe53151nospam-25EBA3.09160306112003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in
message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least
until
*he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him
next
time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again.
Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does
have
a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good
at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I
hate
it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting
me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would laugh
at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray for
us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even though
he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man,
that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
:) I didn't realize before that you were a xian. That's a
compliment, btw, that I didn't *realize it. Most xians in this NG
make a point of it.
A point: you don't have to refer to this NG as "you people". That's
for people like duke and Randy. A reasonable xian who spends any time
here is still "one of us". (Not an atheist, but a regular.) At least
I feel so. Anybody opposed?
Not me. Usenet was set up originally as a free-for-all, and it still is,
at
least unmoderated groups like this one are, and all the better for
encouraging the practice of freedom of speech worldwide, in my opinion.
Anyroad, I kind of have the hots a little bit for Erica.
Really? Do you know what she looks like even? (Sorry, I'm shallow
enough to at least need to see someone before getting the hots. I'll
admit I'd like to know though.)
jwk
I would like to get to know her (and I mean that in a biblical sense). I
wonder which pub she frequents.
Appearances don't matter. A sassy girl who is brave enough to dive right
into the most active forum on Usenet, alt dot atheism, where the world-class
pros hang out, is worth giving a little tickle, know what I mean, nudge
nudge? Say no more. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
10 Nov 2003 08:36:19 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tJVqb.140671$Tr4.362137@attbi_s03>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311070621.5cca223d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<sLBqb.131217$HS4.1034321@attbi_s01>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311061051.270c9f1a@posting.google.com...
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<scribe53151nospam-25EBA3.09160306112003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in
message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at least
until
*he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him
next
time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject again.
Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he does
have
a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any good
at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much I
hate
it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't persecuting
me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would laugh
at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray for
us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even though
he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man,
that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
:) I didn't realize before that you were a xian. That's a
compliment, btw, that I didn't *realize it. Most xians in this NG
make a point of it.
A point: you don't have to refer to this NG as "you people". That's
for people like duke and Randy. A reasonable xian who spends any time
here is still "one of us". (Not an atheist, but a regular.) At least
I feel so. Anybody opposed?
Not me. Usenet was set up originally as a free-for-all, and it still is,
at
least unmoderated groups like this one are, and all the better for
encouraging the practice of freedom of speech worldwide, in my opinion.
Anyroad, I kind of have the hots a little bit for Erica.
Really? Do you know what she looks like even? (Sorry, I'm shallow
enough to at least need to see someone before getting the hots. I'll
admit I'd like to know though.)
jwk
I would like to get to know her (and I mean that in a biblical sense). I
wonder which pub she frequents.
Appearances don't matter. A sassy girl who is brave enough to dive right
into the most active forum on Usenet, alt dot atheism, where the world-class
pros hang out, is worth giving a little tickle, know what I mean, nudge
nudge? Say no more. 8^)
Hey! Stop that! <looks left then right> You'll start a whole python
thread in a minute!
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
10 Nov 2003 10:56:42 AM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311100636.328a5eef@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<tJVqb.140671$Tr4.362137@attbi_s03>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311070621.5cca223d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<sLBqb.131217$HS4.1034321@attbi_s01>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311061051.270c9f1a@posting.google.com...
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<scribe53151nospam-25EBA3.09160306112003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in
message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at
least
until
*he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him
next
time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject
again.
Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to
another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he
does
have
a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any
good
at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much
I
hate
it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it
anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was
doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't
persecuting
me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would
laugh
at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray
for
us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite
too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even
though
he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man,
that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
:) I didn't realize before that you were a xian. That's a
compliment, btw, that I didn't *realize it. Most xians in this NG
make a point of it.
A point: you don't have to refer to this NG as "you people".
That's
for people like duke and Randy. A reasonable xian who spends any
time
here is still "one of us". (Not an atheist, but a regular.) At
least
I feel so. Anybody opposed?
Not me. Usenet was set up originally as a free-for-all, and it still
is,
at
least unmoderated groups like this one are, and all the better for
encouraging the practice of freedom of speech worldwide, in my
opinion.
Anyroad, I kind of have the hots a little bit for Erica.
Really? Do you know what she looks like even? (Sorry, I'm shallow
enough to at least need to see someone before getting the hots. I'll
admit I'd like to know though.)
jwk
I would like to get to know her (and I mean that in a biblical sense). I
wonder which pub she frequents.
Appearances don't matter. A sassy girl who is brave enough to dive right
into the most active forum on Usenet, alt dot atheism, where the
world-class
pros hang out, is worth giving a little tickle, know what I mean, nudge
nudge? Say no more. 8^)
Hey! Stop that! <looks left then right> You'll start a whole python
thread in a minute!
But I bet she's a goer. Know what I mean, nudge nudge? Say no more. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: One day, down at the pub... |
11 Nov 2003 07:50:37 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<erPrb.162343$Fm2.144005@attbi_s04>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311100636.328a5eef@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<tJVqb.140671$Tr4.362137@attbi_s03>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311070621.5cca223d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<sLBqb.131217$HS4.1034321@attbi_s01>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0311061051.270c9f1a@posting.google.com...
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<scribe53151nospam-25EBA3.09160306112003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <c6f5ba32.0311060559.12ac4200@posting.google.com>,
jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk) wrote:
scribe53151@yahoo.com (Erica) wrote in message
news:<6dfe32b8.0311060134.308d5f7b@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in
message
news:<qgbjqvovev8ee756gv25r4ml7eujugtmi6@4ax.com>...
Hopefully I would have resisted the name calling - at
least
until
*he*
was rude to *me*.
Maybe you should print out this posting and show it to him
next
time
you see him in the pub?
Mark.
Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to get him on the subject
again.
Any
deep subject really, unless I want to sit and listen to
another
lecture. Dude shoulda been a professor.
He's not a rude guy, not really. Just opinionated. But he
does
have
a
tendancy to bludgeon a person with his point of view.
I suppose I'm a live and let live person too. Never was any
good
at
getting in people's faces, probably because I know how much
I
hate
it
when people approach me that way. And I'd stink at it
anyway.
But then again, someone on the Baptist group said I was
doing
something wrong here at alt.atheism if y'all weren't
persecuting
me
yet. Hmm, now what could I be doing wrong?
You haven't preached at us. You haven't told us you would
laugh
at us
in hell from up in heaven. You haven't told us you would pray
for
us
(a fundy substitute for "***** you".)
Oh what's the matter with me. And that last one is my favorite
too.
When Cathy Lee told Howard Stern she would pray for him (even
though
he
was right about how she was using her kids on the show), oh man,
that's
what it's all about, ya know?
The list goes on and on. Try to
get with the program, will ya.
jwk
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better (g).
:) I didn't realize before that you were a xian. That's a
compliment, btw, that I didn't *realize it. Most xians in this NG
make a point of it.
A point: you don't have to refer to this NG as "you people".
That's
for people like duke and Randy. A reasonable xian who spends any
time
here is still "one of us". (Not an atheist, but a | | | | | | | | | | | |
