| 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: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 12:13:40 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Jim Burns" <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote
Al Klein wrote:
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
It's people's acceptance of it that makes it valuable, something
entirely different.
"People's acceptance" vs. "people's belief" -- entirely different?
Yes, entirely different, knucklehead.
Belief means subjective conviction.
People accept money as payment for services rendered because they know that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
No, it can only be exchanged for something that they want or need from
someone whose subjective conviction matches their own (i.e. that it
has a particular value).
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 03:39:15 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:h1vcjv0limhaslsedhm7uap6rarkomunon@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Jim Burns" <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote
Al Klein wrote:
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
It's people's acceptance of it that makes it valuable, something
entirely different.
"People's acceptance" vs. "people's belief" -- entirely different?
Yes, entirely different, knucklehead.
Belief means subjective conviction.
People accept money as payment for services rendered because they know
that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
No, it can only be exchanged for something that they want or need from
someone whose subjective conviction matches their own (i.e. that it
has a particular value).
--
Marc.
People accept money for serveices rendered for a variety of reasons. Money
can't buy you a trip to the past. Money can't get you to another planet
that supports human life.Ssome people accept money as a sort of score in a
game. Most of the stuff you canbuy with money, above and beyond the tools
for survival is actually wothless or even has a negative value, less than
zero, since it causes unneeded complications.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 01:06:43 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
People accept money as payment for services rendered because they know
that it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
No, it can only be exchanged for something that they want or need from
someone whose subjective conviction matches their own (i.e. that it
has a particular value).
Balderdash. Subjective conviction (belief) has nothing to do with it. People
accept money as payment for goods and services rendered because they KNOW it
is a fact that it can be exchanged for something that they want or need,
anybody's subjective conviction about it be damned.
Try paying for one of my ebay auctions with Euros, and see what
happens. Or try going to a 7-11 in Vancouver with a pocket full of
pesos, and see how far you get.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 03:33:23 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:e32djvke8jr2m2fcoi5ph285p6nbmal7mp@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
People accept money as payment for services rendered because they know
that it can be exchanged for something that they want or need,
anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
No, it can only be exchanged for something that they want or need from
someone whose subjective conviction matches their own (i.e. that it
has a particular value).
Balderdash. Subjective conviction (belief) has nothing to do with it.
People
accept money as payment for goods and services rendered because they KNOW
it
is a fact that it can be exchanged for something that they want or need,
anybody's subjective conviction about it be damned.
Try paying for one of my ebay auctions with Euros, and see what
happens.
You are just being disingenuous. You know that Euros can be exchanged at a
bank for whatever currency you require, knucklehead.
Or try going to a 7-11 in Vancouver with a pocket full of
pesos, and see how far you get.
Disingenuous again. Both Pesos and Canadian dollars are money, and pesoz can
be exchanged at the bank for Canadian currency, knucklehead.
We are discussing money in general, not pesoz in Canadia, and subjective
conviction (belief) has nothing to do with money. People accept money as
payment for goods and services rendered because they KNOW it is a fact that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
13 Aug 2003 12:21:34 PM |
|
|
In article <Ibd_a.130310$YN5.87361@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
And yet I do not accept Euros. Why not?
Because you are a knucklehead.
It may be that, like most people, he has less faith in the easy
spendability a foreign currencies. A faith strongly suported by
experience in the U.S.A., and a primary reason for the creation of
the Euro in the first place.
Septic's failure to understand this is further evidence of his
massive ignorance in economics. Anything more complicated that 1+1 =
2 seem to get Septic muddled.
Or try going to a 7-11 in Vancouver with a pocket full of
pesos, and see how far you get.
Disingenuous again. Both Pesos and Canadian dollars are money, and pesoz
can
be exchanged at the bank for Canadian currency, knucklehead.
Only when a bank is conveniently near, and open, and in the business
of echanging currencies. There are lots of places in Canada where
this is not the case, and pesos are worthless as money.
And yet 7-11's in Vancouver do not accept pesos. Why not?
Irrelevant. We are discussing money in general, not pesoz in Canukland.
Septic has this delusion that he is running things and nothing can
be brought up without his permission. I wonder how Septic, who
claims not to believe in god, came by the notion he is god.
We are discussing money in general, not pesoz in Canadia, and subjective
conviction (belief) has nothing to do with money.
Then why the aphorism "bad money drives out good", which everyone
familiar with economics knows?
Perhaps Septic can explain how we can distinguish between bad money
and good money without reference to 'confidence' or any other
subjective conviction.
Come on Septic, give it a try. Explain how "bad' money can drive out
'good' money if faith in the value of money is irrelevant to its
value?
This will take some extra heavy weaseling by Septic, and I wait with
almost bated breath to see his contortions.
People accept money as
payment for goods and services rendered because they KNOW it
is a fact that it can be exchanged for something that they
want or need, anybody's subjective conviction about it be
damned.
'Bad money drives out good' sort of undamns subjective conviction.
Why, then do some people NOT accept money as payment?
Because they are knuckleheads like you, SnowFleury?
People will accept money they know and have faith in, but reject, or
at least devalue, money they don't know or don't have faith in.
Why do you think that money changers need exist otherwise?
If all money were of fixed value, there would be little point in
exchanging it, and no discount when it was changed.
If Septic is so sure that money's value does not depend on faith, I
hav a lot of confederate money that I will exchange for U.S.
currency at less than face value. And I can get more.
And there are billions in post WWI Reichmarks in huge denomiations
that Septic should try an pick up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 12:45:40 PM |
|
|
In article <n_xZa.115045$Ho3.15032@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Try paying for one of my ebay auctions with Euros, and see what
happens.
You are just being disingenuous. You know that Euros can be exchanged at a
bank for whatever currency you require, knucklehead.
At a discount, which means that money is not just money.
Each variety of money has a relative value depending on the relative
public confidence in that variety. A sudden drop in confidence in a
particular currency produces a sudden drop in value. Though the
currency looks, feels, and probably tastes the same, the change in
perception has caused a change in reality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 11:08:03 PM |
|
|
In article <bouZa.113802$Ho3.14583@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"People's acceptance" vs. "people's belief" -- entirely different?
Yes, entirely different, knucklehead.
Belief means subjective conviction.
People accept money as payment for services rendered because they know that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
They don't "know" that because it isn't always true.
When faith in money or the goverment issuing it disappears, so does
its "monetary" value, producing, sometimes wild, inflation of prices.
There was a bad "double digit" inflation in the U.S. in living
memory in which money lost at least half of its value. Ten dollars
was still ten dollars, but wouldn' but half as much as it would have
a few years earlier.
Post WWI Germany's inflation is probably the most widely known, but
there have been similar, and even worse, ones all over the world .
Thus the value of money is largely, if not entirely, about
subjective conviction, though on a large scale.
Thus Septic has again been arrogantly wrong. Subjective conviction
"is" the "value" of money.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 12:00:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:13:21 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:40:43 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
What specifically makes something money, if not people's belief
in it?
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
It's people's acceptance of it that makes it valuable, something
entirely different.
"People's acceptance" vs. "people's belief" -- entirely different?
In the case of money, yes.
I'm going to just assume you agree with me about money and don't
want to admit it for some private reason of your own.
Assume what you like. People don't "believe in money", they believe
that they can accept it in payment knowing that others will accept it
from them. That has nothing to do with "believing in" it.
My point is that something/someone being a god could be seen as
linked to some group of people worshiping it, just as something
being money is linked to some group of people valuing it.
Which has nothing to do with whether it *IS* a god.
Sure, but he does - according to the definition of god.
According to a redefinition of yours. "God", as defined, is
the supernatural creator of the universe, among other things.
Nope, sorry. The Egyptians didn't think their sun god was the
creator of the universe.
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
No, I was talking about gods.
You said "according to the definition of god" - "god" is the
Jewish/Christian god's name in English ( and should be capitalized).
It doesn't look like you're talking about God instead of gods in
the rest of the thread, either. See, for example, where you write:
: He is if he doesn't believe in any gods. (Belief - by someone
: else - that the sun is a god doesn't make someone who knows that
: the sun exists a theist, unless he also believes that it's a god.)
You can't understand the difference between the entity in your
sentence and the class of entities in mine?
But if you want to talk about whether God is a god, you go ahead.
I expect I'll be dropping back out of the thread at that point.
I think I've pretty much got that one handled already.
Hand-waving isn't handling.
I think it's
analogous to Israel's legal definition of a Jew: someone who
says they're a Jew (at least, I think I heard that.)
I heard that the Earth is flat. (Israel's definition is one
whose mother is a Jew, or one who has converted to Judaism.)
| As stated above, the Law of Return allowed all Jews to immigrate
| freely to Israel. In the first few decades of the state, no
| official definition of "Jew" guided aspiring immigrants or the
| state.
http://www.adl.org/Israel/Conversion/testing-principles.asp
"Says" is present tense, in case that slipped your mind. The legal
definition of who was a Jew didn't exist when there was no official
definition of "Jew".
Can't you keep your story straight without a scorecard?
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could beunder-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 10:51:01 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:13:21 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
[...]
Assume what you like. People don't "believe in money", they
believe that they can accept it in payment knowing that others
will accept it from them. That has nothing to do with "believing
in" it.
The only way I can make sense of that is if you think that
if someone _knows_ X, they do not _believe_ X. Is that a fair
assessment of your position?
My point is that something/someone being a god could be seen as
linked to some group of people worshiping it, just as something
being money is linked to some group of people valuing it.
Which has nothing to do with whether it *IS* a god.
Is Ra a god? I'm not asking does Ra exist; I'm asking should
we refer to the character known as "Ra" as a god? This is the same
kind of question as "Is Sherlock Holmes a detective?"
If you say "No", then you are using the word "god" differently
from practically every other English speaker on the planet,
and, with translations to "Gott", "dieu", etc, practically
every human on the planet.
If you say "Yes", what is it about Ra that makes him a god?
A useful answer should also apply to Jesus, Ahura-Mazda,
Coyote, and Athena, among others.
Sure, but he does - according to the definition of god.
According to a redefinition of yours. "God", as defined, is
the supernatural creator of the universe, among other things.
Nope, sorry. The Egyptians didn't think their sun god was the
creator of the universe.
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
No, I was talking about gods.
You said "according to the definition of god" - "god" is the
Jewish/Christian god's name in English ( and should be capitalized).
Exquisitely lame.
[...]
But if you want to talk about whether God is a god, you go ahead.
I expect I'll be dropping back out of the thread at that point.
I think I've pretty much got that one handled already.
Hand-waving isn't handling.
Fine, I'll let you in on the secret: God is a god. Feel better?
I think it's
analogous to Israel's legal definition of a Jew: someone who
says they're a Jew (at least, I think I heard that.)
I heard that the Earth is flat. (Israel's definition is one
whose mother is a Jew, or one who has converted to Judaism.)
| As stated above, the Law of Return allowed all Jews to immigrate
| freely to Israel. In the first few decades of the state, no
| official definition of "Jew" guided aspiring immigrants or the
| state.
http://www.adl.org/Israel/Conversion/testing-principles.asp
"Says" is present tense, in case that slipped your mind. The legal
definition of who was a Jew didn't exist when there was no official
definition of "Jew".
Can't you keep your story straight without a scorecard?
*****. The "story" is right there.
I have gone out of my way to be as honest as I could, even if it
didn't show me in the best light. I noted informally
that my recollection was vague. I picked a quote that showed
both where I was right and where I wasn't.
(Take note, you *****, that I was right enough to be able
use that example to illustrate how something like being a Jew
or being a god can be well known but still hard to define.)
(Note also, *****, that your comparison to the flat earth theory
was completely wrong. My recollection was not so wrong,
just dated.)
In response, you implied I'm changing my story, that is, lying.
***** you, Al.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 09:48:12 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:40:43 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
What specifically makes something money, if not people's belief in
it?
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill, it's
just a piece of paper to them. Money is only money because the
government declares it to be so, and you and I choose to go along with
their claim. If nobody agreed, it would not be money.
I'm not sure yet if I want to take the position that it's people's
belief that some entity is a god that makes it a god, but I do
think it's a reasonable option for a definition.
But "god" is already defined - it doesn't need a redefinition.
There are several definitions for the word. And, if people today are
using the word in a different sense than they have in the past, then
the new definition should be acknowledged.
I could say, Ancient Egyptians believed the sun was a god, and
therefore it was. However, they also ascribed certain powers to
the sun, such as having a personality, caring about being
worshiped, whatever. In this they were wrong. Do you see anything
wrong with putting it this way?
That they were wrong? No. That the sun is what we define as "a god"?
Yes.
Is Ra a god?
According to a redefinition of yours. "God", as defined, is the
supernatural creator of the universe, among other things.
Nope, sorry. The Egyptians didn't think their sun god was the
creator of the universe.
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
Scanning through previous messages, I don't see that. In fact, the
sequence that the above quote follows goes:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Then strictly speaking I am not an atheist - and neither are you.
He is if he doesn't believe in any gods.
Sure, but he does - according to the definition of god.
According to a redefinition of yours. "God", as defined, is the
supernatural creator of the universe, among other things.
Nope, sorry. The Egyptians didn't think their sun god was the
creator of the universe.
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
I see "gods" and "god", without the capital G. From the looks of it,
you are arguing that an atheist is still an atheist if he believes in
"Ra", but not if he believes in "God". I'm certain that that's not
what you meant, though.
I think it's
analogous to Israel's legal definition of a Jew: someone who says
they're a Jew (at least, I think I heard that.)
I heard that the Earth is flat. (Israel's definition is one whose
mother is a Jew, or one who has converted to Judaism.)
What is art? Art is that which is pointed to when someone asks "what
is art?"
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 12:11:27 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ghlcjv4ofc11t3ero40rd5q1q70c67v8h6@4ax.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:40:43 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
What specifically makes something money, if not people's belief in
it?
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill ...
... then they suffer from delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality). http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Not at all. I live on the border between Canada and the USA. There are
plenty of businesses that do not accept the currency of the other
nation. Those that DO accept it have different opinions of its value.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 12:49:50 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t1vcjvcqsrah6q7vnbseeq7i5csl1td1vn@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ghlcjv4ofc11t3ero40rd5q1q70c67v8h6@4ax.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:40:43 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
What specifically makes something money, if not people's belief in
it?
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill ...
... then they suffer from delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality). http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Not at all.
Yes, it's undeniably true.
I live on the border between Canada and the USA.
So do I.
There are
plenty of businesses that do not accept the currency of the other
nation.
Then they will soon go out of business, since cross-border trade is vital to
the well being of any border retail business. Just go look at all the
boarded up storefronts in Blaine and Sumas Washington since the exchange
rate for Canadian currency dropped so low.
Those that DO accept it have different opinions of its value.
Take it to any bank for the standard exchange rate. Or use your Visa card
and that will be taken care of automatically. But you are just being
disingenuous, aren't you, knucklehead?
People accept money as payment for goods or services rendered because they
know that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
Why don't you try getting real for a change, knucklehead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 01:00:40 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Al Klein wrote:
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill ...
... then they suffer from delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality). http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Not at all.
Yes, it's undeniably true.
Since I just denied it, you are clearly lying.
I live on the border between Canada and the USA.
So do I.
There are
plenty of businesses that do not accept the currency of the other
nation.
Then they will soon go out of business, since cross-border trade is vital to
the well being of any border retail business. Just go look at all the
boarded up storefronts in Blaine and Sumas Washington since the exchange
rate for Canadian currency dropped so low.
Please tell us what drugs you are on.
The Canadian dollar, in the last couple of months, has been at a
six-year high.
But besides that, what does it have to do with the argument? Money is
only money if it is accepted as such. It is just paper to people who
don't take it.
Those that DO accept it have different opinions of its value.
Take it to any bank for the standard exchange rate.
First, that's false, since different banks will give you different
rates. In addition, they give it to you at LESS than the current
exchange rate, so that they can make a profit on the exchange.
Besides which, that doesn't change my point: different people will
assign different values to currency. The bank will give you one rate,
while a business might give you another.
Or use your Visa card
and that will be taken care of automatically.
At yet another different rate.
But you are just being
disingenuous, aren't you, knucklehead?
Not at all. You are proving my point. Different people value a $20
bill differently. There is no inherent value.
People accept money as payment for goods or services rendered because they
know that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
Not everyone accepts cash payments, so you are obviously wrong.
Why don't you try getting real for a change, knucklehead?
....said the guy from Bizarro World.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 03:33:24 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3l1djvshcdd6hul0h1cgmiio6s6kferlfq@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Al Klein wrote:
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill ...
... then they suffer from delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality). http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Not at all.
Yes, it's undeniably true.
Since I just denied it, you are clearly lying.
I live on the border between Canada and the USA.
So do I.
There are
plenty of businesses that do not accept the currency of the other
nation.
Then they will soon go out of business, since cross-border trade is vital
to
the well being of any border retail business. Just go look at all the
boarded up storefronts in Blaine and Sumas Washington since the exchange
rate for Canadian currency dropped so low.
Please tell us what drugs you are on.
Massive doses of oatmeal to help keep the LDL down, knucklehead. Are you
taking some kind of hallucinogens to bring on these delusions of yours, or
do they just come naturally to you knuckleheads?
The Canadian dollar, in the last couple of months, has been at a
six-year high.
For the last couple of months, knucklehead. The boarded up businesses I
mentioned have been boarded up for years, because the Canadians stopped
coming over to buy things, due to the unfavorable exchange rate. Where have
you been?
But besides that, what does it have to do with the argument? Money is
only money if it is accepted as such.
Precisely so, and people accept money as payment for goods and services
rendered because they
KNOW that it can be exchanged for something that they want or need,
anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
Why don't you try getting real for a change, knucklehead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 04:43:04 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0indjv43gok5v1cr18gf8m21uf2pef3svc@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
But besides that, what does it have to do with the argument? Money is
only money if it is accepted as such.
Precisely so
Nice to see you now agree.
and people accept money as payment for goods and services
rendered because they
KNOW that it can be exchanged for something that they want or need,
anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
Argumentum ad nauseum.
Denial of the facts ad nauseam on your part you mean.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
13 Aug 2003 12:24:01 PM |
|
|
In article <Ibd_a.130309$YN5.87336@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0indjv43gok5v1cr18gf8m21uf2pef3svc@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
But besides that, what does it have to do with the argument? Money is
only money if it is accepted as such.
Precisely so
Nice to see you now agree.
and people accept money as payment for goods and services
rendered because they
KNOW that it can be exchanged for something that they want or need,
anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
Argumentum ad nauseum.
Denial of the facts ad nauseam on your part you mean.
'Bad money drives out good', and it seems that Septic is trying to
drown out with his his bad logic all the good logic that appears
here/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 07:06:56 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
People accept money as payment for goods or services rendered because
they know that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
Not everyone accepts cash payments, so you are obviously wrong.
Cash is not the only form of money, knucklehead.
Didn't say that it was, moron.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 12:37:27 PM |
|
|
In article <o_xZa.115376$o%2.51220@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3l1djvshcdd6hul0h1cgmiio6s6kferlfq@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
People accept money as payment for goods or services rendered because
they
know that
it can be exchanged for something that they want or need, anybody's
subjective conviction about it be damned.
Not everyone accepts cash payments, so you are obviously wrong.
Cash is not the only form of money, knucklehead.
Some people only barter, and do not use cash in any form, at least
for most of their commerce. They can and do refuse cash in any form.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 12:30:27 AM |
|
|
In article <2BvZa.114598$uu5.16114@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t1vcjvcqsrah6q7vnbseeq7i5csl1td1vn@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ghlcjv4ofc11t3ero40rd5q1q70c67v8h6@4ax.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:40:43 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
What specifically makes something money, if not people's belief in
it?
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill ...
... then they suffer from delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality). http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Not at all.
Yes, it's undeniably true.
I live on the border between Canada and the USA.
So do I.
There are
plenty of businesses that do not accept the currency of the other
nation.
Then they will soon go out of business, since cross-border trade is vital to
the well being of any border retail business. Just go look at all the
boarded up storefronts in Blaine and Sumas Washington since the exchange
rate for Canadian currency dropped so low.
Those that DO accept it have different opinions of its value.
Take it to any bank for the standard exchange rate. Or use your Visa card
and that will be taken care of automatically. But you are just being
disingenuous, aren't you, knucklehead?
Speaking of disingenuous, anyone who thinks that beliefs in a
currency's stability and relative value does not affect exchange
rates lives in a very protected world. Subjective conviction runs
agiotage.
People accept money as payment for goods or services rendered
because they know that it can be exchanged for something that
they want or need, anybody's subjective conviction about it be
damned.
Well, considering Septic's erroneous subjective convictions about
money, he better have someone else manage his.
Why don't you try getting real for a change, knucklehead?
We are all being way too real for Septic to understand now.
Any more real, and Septic would lose track entirely.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 12:10:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:11:27 -0400, Marc Fleury
<marcfleury@sympatico.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ghlcjv4ofc11t3ero40rd5q1q70c67v8h6@4ax.com...
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill ...
... then they suffer from delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality). http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Not at all. I live on the border between Canada and the USA. There are
plenty of businesses that do not accept the currency of the other
nation. Those that DO accept it have different opinions of its value.
Not at all. A Canadian dollar is worth (approximately) 75 US cents.
Anyone with any intelligence accepts that.
Businesses don't refuse to accept the money of the other country
because they believe that it's worthless, or that it's not money - or
that it doesn't have the extrinsic value it claims.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
10 Aug 2003 09:37:10 PM |
|
|
In article <q7uZa.113993$uu5.16327@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ghlcjv4ofc11t3ero40rd5q1q70c67v8h6@4ax.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:40:43 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
What specifically makes something money, if not people's belief in
it?
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill ...
... then they suffer from delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality). http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Not at all. When dollars were backed by gold, then then had a value
that was more than just faith.
Nowadays the worth of a dollar is no more than the faith you have in
the government issuing it.
And those who disagree are the ones are the ones with delusional
disorders and impaired contact with the reality of the past few
years.
And the way Bush, et al, are messing with things, that faith is
being more stressed more day by day.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 12:07:50 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:48:12 -0400, Marc Fleury
<marcfleury@sympatico.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:40:43 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
posted in alt.atheism:
What specifically makes something money, if not people's belief in
it?
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill
It's still a $20 bill.
it's just a piece of paper to them.
I said it remains money whether any particular person accepts it or
not.
Money is only money because the government declares it to be so
And that's what makes it money - whether Mr. X accepts it as money or
not.
and you and I choose to go along with
their claim. If nobody agreed, it would not be money.
Sure it would. If nobody agreed that the Earth was round, it wouldn't
become flat. Argumentum ad numeram.
I'm not sure yet if I want to take the position that it's people's
belief that some entity is a god that makes it a god, but I do
think it's a reasonable option for a definition.
But "god" is already defined - it doesn't need a redefinition.
There are several definitions for the word.
So it doesn;t need another definition.
I could say, Ancient Egyptians believed the sun was a god, and
therefore it was. However, they also ascribed certain powers to
the sun, such as having a personality, caring about being
worshiped, whatever. In this they were wrong. Do you see anything
wrong with putting it this way?
That they were wrong? No. That the sun is what we define as "a god"?
Yes.
Is Ra a god?
First we have to find out whether there is such a thing as "Ra".
According to a redefinition of yours. "God", as defined, is the
supernatural creator of the universe, among other things.
Nope, sorry. The Egyptians didn't think their sun god was the
creator of the universe.
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
Scanning through previous messages, I don't see that. In fact, the
sequence that the above quote follows goes:
You missed "according to the definition of god"?
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
I see "gods" and "god", without the capital G.
Since proper names get capitalized in English, "god" is a typo.
From the looks of it,
you are arguing that an atheist is still an atheist if he believes in
"Ra", but not if he believes in "God". I'm certain that that's not
what you meant, though.
No, what I'm arguing is that a theist is anyone who believes in any
god. And that believing that someone else calls a god exists does not
make one a theist.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 09:30:47 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
<marcfleury@sympatico.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Money is money, whether a particular person believes in it or not.
Not really. If someone doesn't accept the value of a $20 bill
it's just a piece of paper to them.
I said it remains money whether any particular person accepts it or
not.
Money is only money because the government declares it to be so
And that's what makes it money - whether Mr. X accepts it as money or
not.
So if the government of Liberia announced that your underwear was
money, would it be?
and you and I choose to go along with
their claim. If nobody agreed, it would not be money.
Sure it would. If nobody agreed that the Earth was round, it wouldn't
become flat. Argumentum ad numeram.
If I look at the balance of my savings account online, and I see that
it has about $1200, what form does that money take? Is it the digits
on the computer screen? Is it the magnetic signature representing
those digits in the computers at my bank? Or is it the shared idea in
the minds of me and the people who work at my bank that they owe me
$1200?
Whether the earth is flat or not is a fact of reality, so people's
opinions about it has no effect on that reality. But you have already
admitted that money is only money IF the government declares it to be
so. The government consists of people. If those people changed their
mind, then it would cease to be money. Clearly, then, there is a
difference between the value of money and the curvature of the earth
-- the earth has a curvature completely independent of government
declaration, while the value of money is highly dependent on
government declarations.
I'm not sure yet if I want to take the position that it's people's
belief that some entity is a god that makes it a god, but I do
think it's a reasonable option for a definition.
But "god" is already defined - it doesn't need a redefinition.
There are several definitions for the word.
So it doesn;t need another definition.
We're not giving it another definition. We are describing how people
already use the word. "Ra is the Egyptian sun god" is a valid use of
the word "god". What makes Ra a god, if not the fact that the ancient
Egyptians believed it was a god?
I could say, Ancient Egyptians believed the sun was a god, and
therefore it was. However, they also ascribed certain powers to
the sun, such as having a personality, caring about being
worshiped, whatever. In this they were wrong. Do you see anything
wrong with putting it this way?
That they were wrong? No. That the sun is what we define as "a god"?
Yes.
Is Ra a god?
First we have to find out whether there is such a thing as "Ra".
Why? Or, to put it a different way, how about this one: Is Hamlet a
murderer?
According to a redefinition of yours. "God", as defined, is the
supernatural creator of the universe, among other things.
Nope, sorry. The Egyptians didn't think their sun god was the
creator of the universe.
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
Scanning through previous messages, I don't see that. In fact, the
sequence that the above quote follows goes:
You missed "according to the definition of god"?
No, I didn't.
We're talking about God, not Ra. Two totally distinct entities.
I see "gods" and "god", without the capital G.
Since proper names get capitalized in English, "god" is a typo.
So, your "misreading" depends on your assumption that a typo was made?
How about you assume that there was no typo, and just go with what he
actually wrote?
From the looks of it,
you are arguing that an atheist is still an atheist if he believes in
"Ra", but not if he believes in "God". I'm certain that that's not
what you meant, though.
No, what I'm arguing is that a theist is anyone who believes in any
god. And that believing that someone else calls a god exists does not
make one a theist.
That last sentence doesn't scan, but I probably agree with what you
meant it to say.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 11:56:54 AM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
If I look at the balance of my savings account online, and I see that
it has about $1200, what form does that money take?
See the little $? That indicates that it is US dollars, knucklehead.
Actually, it doesn't. It indicates that it's Canadian dollars.
Is it the digits
on the computer screen? Is it the magnetic signature representing
those digits in the computers at my bank? Or is it the shared idea in
the minds of me and the people who work at my bank that they owe me
$1200?
That's not an "idea," knucklehead. That $1200 IS yours.
So answer the question. What entity constitutes the money? The display
on the screen, the magnetic encoding on the bank's computer, or what?
Whether the earth is flat or not is a fact of reality, so people's
opinions about it has no effect on that reality. But you have already
admitted that money is only money IF the government declares it to be
so. The government consists of people.
Not true. In the US, Canada, and most other reasonable places in the world
we have a government under law, knucklehead.
??
Clearly, then, there is a
difference between the value of money and the curvature of the earth
Not true. Earth is Earth, and money is money (whatever is exstablished as
legal tender for all debts public and private).
The curvature of the earth is a fact of nature. The value of money is
a result of human culture. If you are unable to see that difference, I
feel sorry for you.
But "god" is already defined - it doesn't need a redefinition.
There are several definitions for the word.
So it doesn;t need another definition.
We're not giving it another definition.
Yes you are. You are trying to extablish that anything anybody says is a god
is a god. That's absurd. A star is a star. Period.
You snipped part of my comment. "We are describing how people already
use the word". That's what definitions do.
Is Ra a god?
First we have to find out whether there is such a thing as "Ra".
Why?
If there is no such thing then it is not anything, knucklehead.
There's no such thing as unicorns, and yet the IPU is one. Whether or
not unicorns exist as living, breathing animals has no bearing on
whether or not the IPU is a unicorn.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 02:53:06 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:d9ifjvgr19581t9ek5bd6od228gkeo9mcd@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Is it the digits
on the computer screen? Is it the magnetic signature representing
those digits in the computers at my bank? Or is it the shared idea in
the minds of me and the people who work at my bank that they owe me
$1200?
That's not an "idea," knucklehead. That $1200 IS yours.
So answer the question.
I did. It is not an "idea," knucklehead. That $1200 IS yours.
Still not answered. Here's the question again: What entity constitutes
the money?
"That $1200 IS yours" is not a proper answer to "What entity
constitutes the money?"
Of course, c'mon ... we're talking to Septic here. Has he EVER
honestly answered a question?
Whether the earth is flat or not is a fact of reality, so people's
opinions about it has no effect on that reality. But you have already
admitted that money is only money IF the government declares it to be
so. The government consists of people.
Not true. In the US, Canada, and most other reasonable places in the
world
we have a government under law, knucklehead.
??
Not suprising that you do not know what the hell I am talking about.
It's never surprising that people don't know what the hell you're
talking about, Septic. That's just the nature of Septic!
We are governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, knucklehead.
Let me know when you get back to the actual discussion.
Clearly, then, there is a
difference between the value of money and the curvature of the earth
Not true. Earth is Earth, and money is money (whatever is established as
legal tender for all debts public and private).
The curvature of the earth is a fact of nature. The value of money is
a result of human culture.
So what? Earth is still Earth, and money is still money (whatever is
established as legal tender for all debts public and private).
Septic defense #1 (of 2): If you are proved wrong, just repeat what
you said before.
We're not giving it another definition.
Yes you are. You are trying to extablish that anything anybody says is a
god is a god. That's absurd. A star is a star. Period.
You snipped part of my comment. "We are describing how people already
use the word". That's what definitions do.
That's what I said. You are trying to extablish that anything anybody says
is a god is a god, by definition. That's absurd. A star is a star. Period.
Let me know when you learn the difference between describing how
people use a word, and inventing a new definition.
Is Ra a god?
First we have to find out whether there is such a thing as "Ra".
Why?
If there is no such thing then it is not anything, knucklehead.
There's no such thing as unicorns ...
BLASPHEMER!!
Septic defense #2 (of 2): If you are proved wrong, just snip out the
proof and pretend it never happened.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 05:34:46 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4gsfjvc1hv8d0fcog7fuq6mtdk5ot5rnve@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:d9ifjvgr19581t9ek5bd6od228gkeo9mcd@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Is it the digits
on the computer screen? Is it the magnetic signature representing
those digits in the computers at my bank? Or is it the shared idea
in
the minds of me and the people who work at my bank that they owe me
$1200?
That's not an "idea," knucklehead. That $1200 IS yours.
So answer the question.
I did. It is not an "idea," knucklehead. That $1200 IS yours.
Still not answered. Here's the question again: What entity constitutes
the money?
"That $1200 IS yours" is not a proper answer to "What entity
constitutes the money?"
If you do not know somehow that you still really own $1200, even after you
have deposited that amount in a bank for safekeeping, then you should be
handled with a chain, moron.
<snip ad hominem>
Whether the earth is flat or not is a fact of reality, so people's
opinions about it has no effect on that reality. But you have
already
admitted that money is only money IF the government declares it to
be
so. The government consists of people.
Not true. In the US, Canada, and most other reasonable places in the
world
we have a government under law, knucklehead.
??
Not suprising that you do not know what the hell I am talking about.
It's never surprising that people don't know what the hell you're
talking about
<Snip more ad hominem>
We are governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, knucklehead.
Let me know when you get back to the actual discussion.
You said, "The government consists of people." That is not correct. We are
governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, knucklehead.
Try to keep up with the discussion as we go along, so that we don't have to
keep lapping back to pick you up, knucklehead.
Clearly, then, there is a
difference between the value of money and the curvature of the earth
Not true. Earth is Earth, and money is money (whatever is established
as
legal tender for all debts public and private).
The curvature of the earth is a fact of nature. The value of money is
a result of human culture.
So what? Earth is still Earth, and money is still money (whatever is
established as legal tender for all debts public and private).
Septic defense #1 (of 2): If you are proved wrong, just repeat what
you said before.
But what I said is correct, knucklehead. Money is still money (whatever is
established by law as legal tender for all debts public and private),
anybody's subjective conviction be damned.
We're not giving it another definition.
Yes you are. You are trying to extablish that anything anybody says is
a
god is a god. That's absurd. A star is a star. Period.
You snipped part of my comment. "We are describing how people already
use the word". That's what definitions do.
That's what I said. You are trying to extablish that anything anybody
says
is a god is a god, by definition. That's absurd. A star is a star.
Period.
Let me know when you learn the difference between describing how
people use a word, and inventing a new definition.
Well, that is what you are trying to do, sell a new definition, whatever
people say is a god is a god.
Here is the perfectly adequte one we already have:
god : a hypothetical (imaginary) being of supernatural powers or attributes,
especially a hypothetical (imaginary) male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
Is Ra a god?
First we have to find out whether there is such a thing as "Ra".
Why?
If there is no such thing then it is not anything, knucklehead.
There's no such thing as unicorns ...
BLASPHEMER!!
... proved wrong ...
BLASPHEMER!!
http://world.std.com/~apl/Humor/shat.html
Tony Lawrence: The IPU Lives!
More Humor
Poor Christians. We, the followers of Her Holy Pinkness, consumers of the
Holy Pizza, deeply regret that you choose to defy the very Being who will
save your soul from eternal misery. You have been misled by empty promises
of a Savior who never comes, of a Heaven you will never attain unless you
repent your ways now.
The EAC has said that we cannot proselytize, that it is beneath us, that it
would fall on deaf ears. I think they are wrong! I think the Good News of
your Salvation must be spread, so you can join us on the Pinkish Plains of
Paradise. I therefor come to you in the Holy Spirit of Her Invisible
Pinkness, and offer you Her Grace:
May the Invisible Pink Unicorn defecate upon your shoes, for it is written
that only then may you enter the Kingdom of Heaven and ride the Holy Camel
Beasts throughout all eternity.
May you fall upon your knees and scoop the Heavenly Pink ***** into your
hands and spread it upon your face, in your hair, all over your body
(technically, this procedure is not in the Holy Book of Spam and is not
required for salvation, but it amuses the hell out of the rest of us, so we
always mention it).
Her Holy Pinkness Shat for your Sins, that you, upon reaching Heaven, will
never defecate again! This is the Seventh Mystery, and the other six are
really strange and neat, too.
There is a Hoof Shaped Hole in your hearts, and you know it, though through
your anger and your fear you refuse to admit it. You hold your noses and
will not inhale the Glorious Stench of Pink Unicorn *****. You are not ready,
my brother, not ready to join with us in the Mystery of the Pineapple and
Ham. I lament for you, and pray to Her Pinkness that your nostrils will be
opened, as ours have been.
I want you to know the tartness of the Pineapple, to taste the sweet Ham in
the Holy Romano, baked upon the crispy crust, to bring the Warmth into your
mouth, to roll it upon your tongue, to inhale its Holy Fragrance. I want to
share with you the mysteries of Her Pinkness, tell you of Her mighty Hooves,
Her firey breath, Her majestic Tail.
I want you to join us in our nightly readings from the Holy Book of Spam,
that you may learn of the Mysteries, and be confused and dumfounded.
Most of all, I want you to be enveloped in Her Invisible Pinkness, to know
Her Love, to be one with Her spirit.
We of the IPU are told not to waste our breath upon those who Will Not
Smell. Her Pinkness tells us that men either come unto Her Holy Hooves
willingly, or not at all. She warns us that proselytizing is much as
teaching pigs to sing: it wears you out, and annoys the pig.
But still, I fear for your soul, my brother. I do not want you to be cast
into to the Mines of Misery to spend all eternity grubbing in the darkness.
I do not want you to curse your bleeding stubs of fingers, to gaze forever
at clean shoes, devoid of Pink *****. Join us in worshipping Her Pinkness,
and avoid your damnation.
You who mock Her Pinkness deny Her Everlasting Love, and thus earn Her
Undying Contempt. The IPU wants you to accept Her as your Pink Unicorn. Her
Holy Hooves wish to trample your sins, and She wants the hot breath of Her
Holy Nostrils to cleanse you of unwanted facial hair.
You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. If we are wrong, then you
can convert back to your wimpy Christian God seconds before you die. But if
we are right, you will hear the Heavenly Hoofbeats approaching as you slip
away, as Her Righteous Pinkness comes to examine your shoes.
Will She find your shoes worthy of defecation? Only if you have accepted Her
Holy Pinkness into your heart. Only if you have supped on the Holy Pineapple
and Ham Pizza with your atheist brethren. If you have not done these things,
She will leave you for the Trolls from the Mines of Misery, who will drag
you in chains to your cruel fate.
The evidence is all around you. Have you never heard things go bump in the
dark? That is Her Holiness bumping into furniture, something your supposed
Christian God never does.
Have you never seen hoofprints in sand or dirt? Proof positive that Her Holy
Pinkness has passed this way, perhaps disguised as an ordinary horse.
Have you never seen a Pink Unicorn? OF COURSE YOU HAVEN'T! The Holy IPU is
INVISIBLE, she cannot be seen at all, which is the most marvelous proof of
all!
Do not risk entering Eternity with unsoiled shoes. The Mines of Misery are
dark and cold, and you will claw at frozen rock with your bare fingers in
tight passageways, unable to stand, hidden from daylight, hearing only the
moans of the other accursed for all eternity. There is no rest in the Mines
of Misery, no holidays, no 401K, no paid leave. You will crawl on your
miserable belly forever, cold, alone, blind, and worst of all, with no Holy
***** upon your shoes. There will be plenty of *****, of course, and you'll be
crawling through that as well, because Eternity in the Mines of Misery is
not defecation free.
Instead of that awful existence, you could ride Her Holiness to Heaven,
where you will be given your own Camel Beast, your own Flaming Sword, and
your own Sexy Outfit. You will play Polo on the Pinkish Plains of Paradise,
drink nectar from Holy Pink Goblets, and have your every whim attended to by
nubile young attendants (choice of gender and apparent age of attendants is
up to individual worshipper. Gender may be mixed if desired, and exchanged
as taste dictates. The management will accomodate any request for other life
forms of any gender or species). All that, and no unpleasant or annoying
bodily functions! The Holy IPU Shat for your sins, and you won't have to!
Most important of all, you will bask forever in the Pink Radiance of the
Holy IPU.
Come, my brother. You who now pinch your nose and refuse to smell, unpinch,
and breathe deep. Sit with us, partake of the Holy Pineapple and Ham Pizza,
and learn of Her Pinkness and all that She can do for you (common side
effects include nausea, dizziness and stomach cramps. In most worshippers,
these symptoms are mild. Consult your Doctor if you have a previous history
of allergies to Unicorns, Invisible Beings, Peter Paul candies, or any song
by the Carpenters).
My atheist brethren say that you will ignore this. I say if there is only
one among you who will hear this news, only one soul saved from the Mines of
Misery, then it is worthwhile to have annoyed the rest of you.
Her Holy Pinkness loves you. I love you. All Atheists love you, adore you,
are simply head over heels fruity over you. That is, we are if you will
accept Her Pinkness as your One True Unicorn. If you won't, if you continue
to be angry at Her Pinkness, if you continue to defy Her, if you refuse to
acknowledge the Hoof Shaped Hole in your heart, then we hate you, despise
you, and will never, never be nice to you or give you half a Twix or even
the time of day.
Yours in Her Pinkness, Taint Anthony the Astonished
She Shat for Your Sins!
April 1998 Tony Lawrence-All Rights Reserved
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
11 Aug 2003 05:55:07 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Still not answered. Here's the question again: What entity constitutes
the money?
"That $1200 IS yours" is not a proper answer to "What entity
constitutes the money?"
If you do not know somehow that you still really own $1200, even after you
have deposited that amount in a bank for safekeeping, then you should be
handled with a chain, moron.
STILL not answered. What entity constitutes the money? Is it the
electrons flying out of my computer monitor, the mangetic encoding of
that information in the bank's computers, or the shared idea in my
mind, and in the minds of the people who work at the bank, that they
owe me $1200?
Gonna answer this time? If you don't know how to answer, then you
should be handled with a chain, moron.
<snip ad hominem>
And inserted your own.
Let me know when you get back to the actual discussion.
You said, "The government consists of people." That is not correct. We are
governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, knucklehead.
The government does consist of people. If you get rid of all people,
there will be no more governments.
Try to keep up with the discussion as we go along, so that we don't have to
keep lapping back to pick you up, knucklehead.
"We"?
You do realize that nobody agrees with you, right? Or ... wait ...
here, this might come in handy:
http://home.comcast.net/~riversrages/
So what? Earth is still Earth, and money is still money (whatever is
established as legal tender for all debts public and private).
Septic defense #1 (of 2): If you are proved wrong, just repeat what
you said before.
But what I said is correct, knucklehead. Money is still money (whatever is
established by law as legal tender for all debts public and private),
anybody's subjective conviction be damned.
Septic defense #1 (of 2). See above.
Let me know when you learn the difference between describing how
people use a word, and inventing a new definition.
Well, that is what you are trying to do, sell a new definition, whatever
people say is a god is a god.
Here is the perfectly adequte one we already have:
"the"? There are several definitions for the word. There is no "the"
definition.
god : a hypothetical (imaginary) being of supernatural powers or attributes,
especially a hypothetical (imaginary) male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
What's with the parenthetical commentary? Perhaps there are actually
THREE Septic defenses!
Septic defense #3 (of 3): If you are proved wrong, find a quote, and
add a bunch of stuff in parentheses and subclauses until it says what
you want it to.
Is Ra a god?
First we have to find out whether there is such a thing as "Ra".
Why?
If there is no such thing then it is not anything, knucklehead.
There's no such thing as unicorns ...
BLASPHEMER!!
... proved wrong ...
BLASPHEMER!!
(Another example of Septic Defense #2. See unsniped previous message
for explanation.)
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 06:23:32 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Still not answered. Here's the question again: What entity constitutes
the money?
"That $1200 IS yours" is not a proper answer to "What entity
constitutes the money?"
If you do not know somehow that you still really own $1200, even after you
have deposited that amount in a bank for safekeeping, then you should be
handled with a chain, moron.
STILL not answered.
HELLO! IS ANYBODY HOME OVER THERE? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:
If you do not know somehow that you still really own $1200, even after you
have deposited that amount in a bank for safekeeping, then you should be
handled with a chain, moron.
STILL not answered. What entity constitutes the money? Is it the
electrons flying out of my computer monitor, the mangetic encoding of
that information in the bank's computers, or the shared idea in my
mind, and in the minds of the people who work at the bank, that they
owe me $1200?
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 02:50:26 PM |
|
|
In article <aSUZa.122738$o%2.53763@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"That $1200 IS yours" is not a proper answer to "What entity
constitutes the money?"
If you do not know somehow that you still really own $1200, even after you
have deposited that amount in a bank for safekeeping, then you should be
handled with a chain, moron.
What has the ownership got to do with the question of what it is?
Septic does not know and so cannot answer, at least on point.
Septic keeps doing that fallacious diversion thing that he accuses
everyone else of doing in order to avoid the questions he can't
answer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 02:53:45 PM |
|
|
In article <aSUZa.122738$o%2.53763@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@h | | | | | | | |
