| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 10:16:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bf9kq0$ptu@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bf94nf$lif@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;"neepy" <dsutherland7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> :news:d4bd1f7c.0307140221.77233a82@posting.google.com...
:> ;> For those who want to see what Huxley really said ...
;> :
:> ;... see Huxley's excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism
and
;> :Christianity," in which Huxley says that agnostics deny and repudiate
:> ;religious belief in the existence of gods:
;> :
:> ;"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
;> :doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
:> ;logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the
term
;> :'agnostic', "Agnosticism and Christianity"
:> ;http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
;>
:> Yes. Claims such as "there is no god" ...
;
:"There is no god" is not a claim,
Yes it is. It is a claim to the effect that there is no god
Not a claim, but the denial of one.
"There is no god" is not a claim, it is the denial, the negation of one.
Nope.
Yep. Denial means denial, the negation in logic (www.m-w.com) of an
assertion. You cannot shift the burden of proof to the denial, knucklehead;
that's a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 08:21:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 11:34:57 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there are
zero ETs.
<snip>
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
Zero ETs? The *count* may be zero, but it is a quantum leap (flying in
the face of probability) that no life exists in extremis of this
planet.
There's no evidence that any does, so it's unwarranted to assume that
one does.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 01:25:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 11:34:57 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there are
zero ETs.
<snip>
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god. /shrug
Zero ETs? The *count* may be zero, but it is a quantum leap (flying in
the face of probability) that no life exists in extremis of this
planet.
There's no evidence that any does, so it's unwarranted to assume that
one does.
To use a favourite theist quote; non-existence of evidence is not
evidence of non-existence. It is unwarranted to assume that in the
infinity that is our universe life has appeared only once; that the
circumstances which allowed it to appear on this planet have never
occurred elsewhere.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 01:49:31 PM |
|
|
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:1gkqiv8uco5pmail4qp82el5uva1dp4l3h@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 11:34:57 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there
are
zero ETs.
<snip>
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god.
That does not alter the fact that it is still just a star, knucklehead. This
'argument' for the existence of gods is just equivocation on your part.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Zero ETs? The *count* may be zero, but it is a quantum leap (flying in
the face of probability) that no life exists in extremis of this
planet.
There's no evidence that any does, so it's unwarranted to assume that
one does.
To use a favourite theist quote ...
.... a favorite of yours since you are theist, and are here to make all the
standard fallacious theist arguments ...
... non-existence of evidence is not
evidence of non-existence.
No evidence that any hypothetical thing does not exist is ever required,
knucklehead. The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted, since that is always logical fallacy.
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 06:04:59 PM |
|
|
In article <%OcXa.40169$Oz4.11471@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god.
That does not alter the fact that it is still just a star, knucklehead. This
'argument' for the existence of gods is just equivocation on your part.
But how do you, Septic, know that your version of what it "actually"
is is the "true" version of what it actually is? That is something
that you have taken on faith.
In other words, Septic, all your claimed "knowledge" is based on
nothing more than "belief".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 01:09:36 AM |
|
|
In article <FKhXa.58612$YN5.45330@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-6BF2F9.17045903082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <%OcXa.40169$Oz4.11471@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a
star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god.
That does not alter the fact that it is still just a star, knucklehead.
This
'argument' for the existence of gods is just equivocation on your part.
But how do you, Septic, know that your version of what it "actually"
is is the "true" version of what it actually is? That is something
that you have taken on faith.
In other words, Septic, all your claimed "knowledge" is based on
nothing more than "belief".
It is a fact that Old Sol is a star, not a god, knucklehead.
And what movies has he/she/it starred in recently?
Depends on what you mean by a star, doesn't it?
Until you define what you mean by a star, and what those who call
Sol a god mean by god, there is no way of telling whether you mean
different things. And after that there is a serious priblem in
determining whether your definition actually fits Sol.
By the way, my own defintion of Sol, only valid on sunny days, is
achieved by pointing at it.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove
anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 04:33:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:49:31 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:1gkqiv8uco5pmail4qp82el5uva1dp4l3h@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 11:34:57 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there
are
zero ETs.
<snip>
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god.
That does not alter the fact that it is still just a star, knucklehead.
I'm repeating myself, because some people can't seem to understand
simple English the first time around. Call me terminally optimistic
that you might get it the second time around...
To those who worship(ped) the sun, it is their god. The sun exists,
ergo their god exists.
You can't even claim that their god is impotent or powerless as
without the sun plants wouldn't grow, cattle couldn't graze, Big Macs
wouldn't exist and you'd have nowhere to take your sister on a
romantic night out.
This
'argument' for the existence of gods is just equivocation on your part.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
In the society in which I live, the primarily "accepted" god is the
Abrahamistic one; i.e. God/Yahweh/Allah. I not only don't believe in
Yahweh (in the passive sense), I actively believe that Yahweh does not
exist. To christians, jews and muslims (the 3 dominant religions in
the society in which I live) I am an atheist.
I am agnostic with regards to Dr Sinister's toaster. He might have a
toaster, he might not. Without further evidence, the matter of its
existence is unknowable.
I am not atheistic with regards to sun worshipers. Nor with regards to
african tribes who worship idols. Their gods exist. Praying to them
won't make the blindest bit of difference in any practical terms, but
(again) their gods exist.
Get it yet?
Zero ETs? The *count* may be zero, but it is a quantum leap (flying in
the face of probability) that no life exists in extremis of this
planet.
There's no evidence that any does, so it's unwarranted to assume that
one does.
To use a favourite theist quote ...
... a favorite of yours since you are theist, and are here to make all the
standard fallacious theist arguments ...
I'm a theist? Wow. News to me.
... non-existence of evidence is not
evidence of non-existence.
No evidence that any hypothetical thing does not exist is ever required,
Correct. And?
knucklehead. The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted, since that is always logical fallacy.
As a non-believer in non-existent gods, I agree. How does that
contribute in any way, shape or form with the discussion with regards
to the likelihood that life exists in extremis of this planet?
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Are you capable of self-expression and free thought or are you only
able to quote from infidels.org?
For the record, I am *not* saying that extra-terrestrial life *does*
exist. I am saying that in all probablity it is very *very* likely to
exist. I have no proof, nor do I need any. I'm referring to the laws
of probability. Knucklehead.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 10:05:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:04:07 GMT, "Threeball Hall"
<hall31728@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:vduqiv0snur2tj76r3grdjes5ghlnf1cdf@4ax.com...
<snip>
I am not atheistic with regards to sun worshipers. Nor with regards to
african tribes who worship idols. Their gods exist. Praying to them
won't make the blindest bit of difference in any practical terms, but
(again) their gods exist.
Get it yet?
You are the one who doesn't get it, knucklehead. Anyone's belief that the
sun is anything but a star does not make it so, moron.
You have an odd habit of punctuating your sentences with insults. Have
you discussed it with your analyst recently?
Let's go thru a few simple (for your benefit, not mine) logical steps,
shall we? Take each one in turn and point out the fallacy. Demonstrate
why it is false.
1) Ancient civilisations worshipped the sun as a god.
2) The sun exists.
3) Their god (the sun) exists.
1 is true, 2 is true, ergo 3 is true.
Now, how difficult was that?
You are just trying to equivocate, just like that other fool, Mark
Richardson, so that you can run around here saying it is true that gods
exist.
Certain gods exist to those who regard them as gods. The ones with a
physical presence.
I can't help feel that you're perhaps struggling with the definition
of "god". Let me oblige:-
(from www.dictionary.com):-
God
1a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
and worship in monotheistic religions.
1b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
2) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
3) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
4) A very handsome man.
5) A powerful ruler or despot.
1a & 1b don't exist. No, I can't prove that they don't exist, but I
believe it to be the truth until evidence becomes available to the
contrary.
2 clearly exists
3 clearly exists
4 clearly exists
5 clearly exists
You aren't atheist then, because atheism is characterized by absence of
belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Oh look, you quoted infidels.org word for word. You seriously aren't
capable of free thought, are you? Try opening your mind just a little
and being a tad less dogmatic.
Or is that just too scary a prospect?
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 11:15:41 AM |
|
|
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:geirivkor736u30n2pi8jn8nnv8usr8p3f@4ax.com...
God
1a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
and worship in monotheistic religions.
1b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
2) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
3) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
4) A very handsome man.
5) A powerful ruler or despot.
1a & 1b don't exist. No, I can't prove that they don't exist, but I
believe it to be the truth until evidence becomes available to the
contrary.
2 clearly exists
An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 11:59:50 AM |
|
|
In article <NEvXa.45777$It4.26931@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
Those images of a man on a cross in many Christian churchs exist.
You be the question by demanding to know whether that man is
anything more that a man.
But then You are always begging for something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 04:12:56 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9EE3EA.10594904082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <NEvXa.45777$It4.26931@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
Those images of a man on a cross in many Christian churchs exist.
You be the question by demanding to know whether that man is
anything more that a man.
But then You are always begging for something.
You might keep begging to *****, but that does not mean that it will
ever happen, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 06:38:55 PM |
|
|
In article <s%zXa.44931$Oz4.12479@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9EE3EA.10594904082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <NEvXa.45777$It4.26931@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
Those images of a man on a cross in many Christian churchs exist.
You be the question by demanding to know whether that man is
anything more that a man.
But then You are always begging for something.
You might keep begging to *****, but that does not mean that it will
ever happen, knucklehead.
I have heard it say that those who are losing an argument often
descent to vulgarity as a last resort.
Does the above remark by Septic, the vulgar, support that saying?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 11:55:44 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:15:41 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:geirivkor736u30n2pi8jn8nnv8usr8p3f@4ax.com...
God
1a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
and worship in monotheistic religions.
1b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
2) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
3) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
4) A very handsome man.
5) A powerful ruler or despot.
1a & 1b don't exist. No, I can't prove that they don't exist, but I
believe it to be the truth until evidence becomes available to the
contrary.
2 clearly exists
An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
You've never seen a totem pole? A statue of buddha? An image of the
crucifixion? A painting of a unicorn? The sphinx at Gaza?
Images/statues of Ra, Anubis, Set, Isis, Osiris? You've lived a very
sheltered life.
All of the above are either idols or images of supernatural beings.
Hell, visit any village in Africa and you'll find carvings of
pre-missionary gods being sold to tourists.
Fuckwit that you are.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 02:43:20 PM |
|
|
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:0c3tiv882hd3382tfmgq72bk1j4huibln1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:15:41 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:geirivkor736u30n2pi8jn8nnv8usr8p3f@4ax.com...
God
1a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
and worship in monotheistic religions.
1b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
2) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
3) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
4) A very handsome man.
5) A powerful ruler or despot.
1a & 1b don't exist. No, I can't prove that they don't exist, but I
believe it to be the truth until evidence becomes available to the
contrary.
2 clearly exists
An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
You've never seen a totem pole?
Demonstrate the supernatural being of which a totem pole is the image,
knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 02:57:57 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
;news:0c3tiv882hd3382tfmgq72bk1j4huibln1@4ax.com...
:> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:15:41 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
;> wrote:
:>
;> >
:> >"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
;> >news:geirivkor736u30n2pi8jn8nnv8usr8p3f@4ax.com...
:> >
;> >
:> >> God
;> >> 1a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
:> >> originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
;> >> and worship in monotheistic religions.
:> >> 1b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
;> >> A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
:> >> worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some
;> >> part of nature or reality.
:> >> 2) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
;> >> 3) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
:> >> 4) A very handsome man.
;> >> 5) A powerful ruler or despot.
:> >>
;> >> 1a & 1b don't exist. No, I can't prove that they don't exist, but I
:> >> believe it to be the truth until evidence becomes available to the
;> >> contrary.
:> >>
;> >> 2 clearly exists
:> >
;> >
:> >An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
;> >supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
:>
;> You've never seen a totem pole?
:
;
:Demonstrate the supernatural being of which a totem pole is the image,
;knucklehead.
Why? Did anyone said 2) is an image of something that even exists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
05 Aug 2003 11:28:23 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgmds5$6mj@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
;news:0c3tiv882hd3382tfmgq72bk1j4huibln1@4ax.com...
:> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:15:41 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
;> wrote:
:>
;> >
:> >"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
;> >news:geirivkor736u30n2pi8jn8nnv8usr8p3f@4ax.com...
:> >
;> >
:> >> God
;> >> 1a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
:> >> originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
;> >> and worship in monotheistic religions.
:> >> 1b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
;> >> A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
:> >> worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control
some
;> >> part of nature or reality.
:> >> 2) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
;> >> 3) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their
god.
:> >> 4) A very handsome man.
;> >> 5) A powerful ruler or despot.
:> >>
;> >> 1a & 1b don't exist. No, I can't prove that they don't exist, but I
:> >> believe it to be the truth until evidence becomes available to the
;> >> contrary.
:> >>
;> >> 2 clearly exists
:> >
;> >
:> >An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
;> >supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
:>
;> You've never seen a totem pole?
:
;
:Demonstrate the supernatural being of which a totem pole is the image,
;knucklehead.
Why? Did anyone said 2) is an image of something that even exists?
Yes.
2) An image of a supernatural being
Demonstrate the supernatural being of which a totem pole carving is the
image.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 06:36:25 PM |
|
|
In article <sHyXa.44717$Oz4.12517@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
An image of a supernatural being clearly exists? Demonstrate the
supernatural being of which an idol is the image, knucklehead.
You've never seen a totem pole?
Demonstrate the supernatural being of which a totem pole is the image,
knucklehead.
Demonstrate the existence of the number for which the numeral 0 is
the image, oh thou knuckleheaded Capon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Still waiting for an answer, Bob White (was Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far) |
04 Aug 2003 07:25:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 04:05:52 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
<snip>
Let's go thru a few simple (for your benefit, not mine) logical steps,
shall we? Take each one in turn and point out the fallacy. Demonstrate
why it is false.
1) Ancient civilisations worshipped the sun as a god.
2) The sun exists.
3) Their god (the sun) exists.
1 is true, 2 is true, ergo 3 is true.
Now, how difficult was that?
In your own time...
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 05:50:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:25:53 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god. /shrug
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
Zero ETs? The *count* may be zero, but it is a quantum leap (flying in
the face of probability) that no life exists in extremis of this
planet.
There's no evidence that any does, so it's unwarranted to assume that
one does.
To use a favourite theist quote; non-existence of evidence is not
evidence of non-existence.
Lack of evidence is not reason to believe in what there's no evidence
for. The default position for an assertion not backed by the
slightest shred of evidence is "no".
It is unwarranted to assume that in the
infinity that is our universe life has appeared only once
It's just as unwarranted to assume that there's life on any other
planet.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 06:19:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:50:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:25:53 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god. /shrug
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
In this respect, what it is or isn't is a subjective thing. Gods are
personal to the believer. Would you dispute that they considered the
sun a god? If not, then you have to concede that from their
perspective the sun was a god.
Fred is my friend. He isn't *your* friend, but he's still *my* friend.
Do you dispute that Fred is *a* friend?
God / friend; both personal concepts.
Zero ETs? The *count* may be zero, but it is a quantum leap (flying in
the face of probability) that no life exists in extremis of this
planet.
There's no evidence that any does, so it's unwarranted to assume that
one does.
To use a favourite theist quote; non-existence of evidence is not
evidence of non-existence.
Lack of evidence is not reason to believe in what there's no evidence
for. The default position for an assertion not backed by the
slightest shred of evidence is "no".
OK, other than the few stars outside of our solar system that have
thus far been shown to have planets orbiting them... is it wrong to
say that there are probably other stars with planets orbiting them?
The *probability* is that there are other stars with orbiting planets,
even though we have no evidence (yet) that there are.
The *probability* is that there are other planets upon which life has
evolved, even though we have no evidence (yet) that there are.
It is unwarranted to assume that in the
infinity that is our universe life has appeared only once
It's just as unwarranted to assume that there's life on any other
planet.
I disagree. /shrug
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Threeball Hall" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 07:04:07 PM |
|
|
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:ih5rivclfols61eaf3psn1riapb3fuebnh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:50:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:25:53 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god. /shrug
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
In this respect, what it is or isn't is a subjective thing.
Moron. Subjective conviction does not alter reality. The sun is a star.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 01:16:27 AM |
|
|
In article <XphXa.57403$Ho3.7738@sccrnsc03>,
"Threeball Hall" <hall31728@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:ih5rivclfols61eaf3psn1riapb3fuebnh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:50:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:25:53 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god. /shrug
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
In this respect, what it is or isn't is a subjective thing.
Moron. Subjective conviction does not alter reality. The sun is a star.
You first have to establish that there is a "reality" out there that
is the same for everyone.
If you want to take that as an axiom, say so, since it is almost
impossible to establish in any other way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 01:31:20 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-A61347.00162704082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <XphXa.57403$Ho3.7738@sccrnsc03>,
"Threeball Hall" <hall31728@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:ih5rivclfols61eaf3psn1riapb3fuebnh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:50:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:25:53 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their
god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but
it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a
star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god. /shrug
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
In this respect, what it is or isn't is a subjective thing.
Moron. Subjective conviction does not alter reality. The sun is a star.
You first have to establish that there is a "reality" out there that
is the same for everyone.
Let me stake you out under the noonday sun for a few hours. I guarantee you
will burn just like everyone else, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 01:54:12 AM |
|
|
In article <Y4nXa.60366$o%2.30440@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You first have to establish that there is a "reality" out there that
is the same for everyone.
Let me stake you out under the noonday sun for a few hours. I guarantee you
will burn just like everyone else, knucklehead.
Just like a false logician like Septic the silly sophist to threaten
violence when he loses at logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 02:36:22 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9E4B5E.00541104082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <Y4nXa.60366$o%2.30440@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You first have to establish that there is a "reality" out there that
is the same for everyone.
Let me stake you out under the noonday sun for a few hours. I guarantee
you
will burn just like everyone else, knucklehead.
Just like a false logician like Septic the silly sophist to threaten
violence when he loses at logic.
What have I lost? You have conceded the point; you admit you would burn just
like everyone else, otherwise you would not refer to it as "violence," you
would know that you would not be harmed if there is no reality out there
that is the same for everyone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 10:08:16 AM |
|
|
At some point in the past, Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> posted this
drivel:
In article <Y4nXa.60366$o%2.30440@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You first have to establish that there is a "reality" out there that
is the same for everyone.
Let me stake you out under the noonday sun for a few hours. I
guarantee you will burn just like everyone else, knucklehead.
Depends. Virgil may be black (won't burn as easily). Virgil may be wearing
sunscreen. You may put Virgil under the noonday sun in the arctic when the
sun is below the horizon. There may be many reasons why Virgil wouldn't
burn under a noonday sun. Not the least of which is "just like everyone
else" implies that everyone burns at exactly the same rate when subjected to
the same conditions. I can prove that to be false...just by going out in
the sun with someone else and observing the burn rate.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 12:27:01 PM |
|
|
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:st6dnaIpF-B867OiU-KYvw@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> posted this
drivel:
In article <Y4nXa.60366$o%2.30440@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You first have to establish that there is a "reality" out there
that is the same for everyone.
Let me stake you out under the noonday sun for a few hours. I
guarantee you will burn just like everyone else, knucklehead.
Depends. Virgil may be black (won't burn as easily). Virgil may be
wearing sunscreen. You may put Virgil under the noonday sun in the
arctic when the sun is below the horizon. There may be many reasons
why Virgil wouldn't burn under a noonday sun.
Nice cavil.
Now let's control for all those variables, as scientists do. (You do
know how to conduct a scientific experiment, don't you, knucklehead?)
Of course, and you snipped out the relevant part, yet again, where I told
you that I can show how two people burn at different rates. The proposition
"you will burn like everyone else if staked under the noonday sun for a few
hours" can be shown to be false, for 2 reasons. 1) The "noonday sun"
doesn't last for "a few hours," and 2) the skin condition of 2 distinct
subjects under the exact same conditions (same time and location, without
sunscreen), depends on the skin condition of the bodies, and the variable of
location of the subject. If I were to go outside under the noonday sun with
a black person, in my area, right now, I guarantee that I will not burn in
the same manner as that person, if either of us burn at all.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 11:01:21 PM |
|
|
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:j0SdnWCHb-v7CrOiXTWJjA@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
message news:st6dnaIpF-B867OiU-KYvw@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> posted this
drivel:
In article <Y4nXa.60366$o%2.30440@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You first have to establish that there is a "reality" out there
that is the same for everyone.
Let me stake you out under the noonday sun for a few hours. I
guarantee you will burn just like everyone else, knucklehead.
Depends. Virgil may be black (won't burn as easily). Virgil may
be wearing sunscreen. You may put Virgil under the noonday sun in
the arctic when the sun is below the horizon. There may be many
reasons why Virgil wouldn't burn under a noonday sun.
Nice cavil.
Now let's control for all those variables, as scientists do. (You do
know how to conduct a scientific experiment, don't you,
knucklehead?)
Of course, and you snipped out the relevant part, yet again, where I
told you that I can show how two people burn at different rates.
The proposition "you will burn like everyone else if staked under
the noonday sun for a few hours" can be shown to be false, for 2
reasons. 1) The "noonday sun" doesn't last for "a few hours," and
2) the skin condition of 2 distinct subjects under the exact same
conditions (same time and location, without sunscreen), depends on
the skin condition of the bodies, and the variable of location of
the subject. If I were to go outside under the noonday sun with a
black person, in my area, right now, I guarantee that I will not
burn in the same manner as that person, if either of us burn at all.
Then you are not controlling for all those variables as is done in a
scientific experiment, knucklehead.
Start thinking like a scientist instead of a theist with a mind full
of mush.
1) I am a scientist.
2) I am not a theist.
3) What other variables would you like me to control? I am exposing two
different bodies to the same UV concentration at the same time, in the same
place, for the same amount of time, without any external blocking agents;
attempting, by empirical observation, to disprove the hypothesis that "if
one is staked out in the noonday sun for a few hours that person will burn
like everyone else." One subject is black, the other white. I guarantee
that the two subjects will not burn in the same manner as "everybody else."
I or the black person might not burn at all. I know for a fact that since I
am currently tanned, I will not burn, from past experience (I don't burn
once my melanin has been activated).
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 06:52:49 PM |
|
|
In article <VqxXa.46032$It4.26739@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Start thinking like a scientist instead of a theist with a mind full of
mush.
A person like Septic, who daily demonstrates his profound ignorance
of everything scientific and particularly of the way scientists
think, now advises others to think more like scientics?
It is to laugh!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 06:41:42 PM |
|
|
In article <4_vXa.45324$Vt6.16820@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Depends. Virgil may be black (won't burn as easily). Virgil may be
wearing
sunscreen. You may put Virgil under the noonday sun in the arctic when
the
sun is below the horizon. There may be many reasons why Virgil wouldn't
burn under a noonday sun.
Nice cavil.
Now let's control for all those variables, as scientists do. (You do know
how to conduct a scientific experiment, don't you, knucklehead?)
Sure!
We stake you out next to me as a control, but with a placebo
sunscreen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 09:37:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:04:07 GMT, "Threeball Hall"
<hall31728@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:ih5rivclfols61eaf3psn1riapb3fuebnh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:50:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:25:53 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:21:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:05:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Zero gods? Tell that to those who did/do worship the sun. Their god
exists. It isn't conscious nor able to answer their prayers, but it
certainly exists.
No, their worship doesn't make the sun a god. It's still just a star.
To you and me it is "just a star". To them, it is a god. /shrug
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
In this respect, what it is or isn't is a subjective thing.
Moron. Subjective conviction does not alter reality. The sun is a star.
And that star isn't a god to sun-worshipping societies? Don't be so
quick to dish out accusations of moronicity just because your mental
faculties can't keep up with the conversation.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
