| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ghost Rider" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2003 04:15:47 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
One fine day in alt.atheism, Son of MAN fired a few neurons and wrote:
And it wasn't nice having either of you.
Your days are over and done with once and for all.
Yes, hard to imagine that a publisher could take a nutcase like me
seriously, right?
You ignorant little maggots.
Here is what the new book "Christ : The Son of Buddha" is based on.
<happily snipped>
People make up new religions all the time. What's so new about this one?
--
Ghost Rider
aa # 2011
EAC Nonexistent Director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Bad Puns
~ Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
"Don't be afraid, man is man-made."
[Greg Lake, "Infinite Space" - Emerson, Lake & Palmer]
.
|
|
| User: "Son of MAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
30 Aug 2003 08:08:00 PM |
|
|
Ghost Rider <ghostman@ghost.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93E791826C6C4ghostmanghostcom@127.0.0.1>...
One fine day in alt.atheism, Son of MAN fired a few neurons and wrote:
And it wasn't nice having either of you.
Your days are over and done with once and for all.
Yes, hard to imagine that a publisher could take a nutcase like me
seriously, right?
You ignorant little maggots.
Here is what the new book "Christ : The Son of Buddha" is based on.
<happily snipped>
People make up new religions all the time. What's so new about this one?
It's the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nvok" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 01:57:00 AM |
|
|
<snipped>
People make up new religions all the time. What's so new about this one?
It's the truth.
That's what they all say. Your new cult better have something better
to it. Free Love?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Holy Kafir" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
30 Aug 2003 08:33:58 PM |
|
|
"Son of MAN" <bcozier@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a4fbe403.0308301708.5297d979@posting.google.com...
Ghost Rider <ghostman@ghost.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns93E791826C6C4ghostmanghostcom@127.0.0.1>...
One fine day in alt.atheism, Son of MAN fired a few neurons and wrote:
And it wasn't nice having either of you.
Your days are over and done with once and for all.
Yes, hard to imagine that a publisher could take a nutcase like me
seriously, right?
You ignorant little maggots.
Here is what the new book "Christ : The Son of Buddha" is based on.
<happily snipped>
People make up new religions all the time. What's so new about this
one?
It's the truth.
According to whom?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 07:56:13 AM |
|
|
"Son of MAN" <bcozier@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a4fbe403.0308301708.5297d979@posting.google.com...
Ghost Rider <ghostman@ghost.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns93E791826C6C4ghostmanghostcom@127.0.0.1>...
One fine day in alt.atheism, Son of MAN fired a few neurons and wrote:
And it wasn't nice having either of you.
Your days are over and done with once and for all.
Yes, hard to imagine that a publisher could take a nutcase like me
seriously, right?
You ignorant little maggots.
Here is what the new book "Christ : The Son of Buddha" is based on.
<happily snipped>
People make up new religions all the time. What's so new about this
one?
It's the truth.
Well, why didn't you say so. I will at once throw away all doubt and reason,
and join immideately.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 08:08:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:56:13 +0200, "Maverick" <sh100@hotmail.com>
wrote:
People make up new religions all the time. What's so new about this
one?
It's the truth.
Well, why didn't you say so. I will at once throw away all doubt and reason,
and join immideately.
This is one of the most aggrivatingly dishonest and stupid things they
say - calling it "the truth".
When it's obviously a religious belief. By doing this they imply that
whatever anybody else believes, knows etc about anything is false
because it's not "the truth".
It's a form of thought control exerted by their religion, on the
mindless. And it renders any kind of meaningful communication
impossible.
It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth.
Of course they don't like their beliefs being treated as a lie. But
it's their own problem for forcing that dichotomy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 11:57:22 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ids3lv4glgtsn1h3g6a0vcr7epdb7q4r5b@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:56:13 +0200, "Maverick" <sh100@hotmail.com>
wrote:
People make up new religions all the time. What's so new about this
one?
It's the truth.
Well, why didn't you say so. I will at once throw away all doubt and
reason,
and join immideately.
This is one of the most aggrivatingly dishonest and stupid things they
say - calling it "the truth".
When it's obviously a religious belief. By doing this they imply that
whatever anybody else believes, knows etc about anything is false
because it's not "the truth".
Exactly. It's as if one religious belief is the only right one. Of course
there is no evidence or anything that might support it, but that doesn't
seem to be a problem for them. Instead, they are arrogant enough to point
other gods and call them "false".
It's a form of thought control exerted by their religion, on the
mindless. And it renders any kind of meaningful communication
impossible.
True. On some chat sites I sometimes get involved in discussion regarding
religion and science and "unexplained phenomena" etc. I kind of like those
discussions, but I also feel powerless when I try to explain - with little
result - the difference between sound and light(!) to someone who claims to
have studied the sciences(!!) (chemistry), or to explain why science is not
a faith comparable to religions, and why it's unnecessary to include gods
and angels in ones worldview. They believe they're right, they want to be
right. Therefor, they are. Me? I'm just a narrowminded skeptic believer in
science. My skepticism is apparently what keeps me from seeing the truth.
That may be correct in some cases, but at least it keeps away a lot of what
is not true.
It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth.
Of course they don't like their beliefs being treated as a lie. But
it's their own problem for forcing that dichotomy.
Well they kinda had that one coming...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 09:49:12 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth.
There is no "middle ground"... unless of course you
can provide a credible example of one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 09:53:54 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:49:12 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth.
There is no "middle ground"... unless of course you
can provide a credible example of one.
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 11:15:40 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:49:12 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth.
There is no "middle ground"... unless of course you
can provide a credible example of one.
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 06:49:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:15:40 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:49:12 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth.
There is no "middle ground"... unless of course you
can provide a credible example of one.
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What "Stupidity", liar?
Like most believers of the brainwashed kind, you insist that it is the
truth, when it's just your religious belief.
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
No, moron, outside their heads it is WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE BELIEVES TO BE
TRUE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
31 Aug 2003 10:48:07 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:15:40 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:49:12 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth.
There is no "middle ground"... unless of course you
can provide a credible example of one.
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What "Stupidity", liar?
Stupidity that prevents you from answering a simple question.
(see below)
Like most believers of the brainwashed kind, you insist that it is the
truth, when it's just your religious belief.
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
No, moron, outside their heads it is WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE BELIEVES TO BE
TRUE.
I asked you to give an example of a middle ground between true
and false. Until you do you're just mouth fartin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
01 Sep 2003 07:38:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 03:48:07 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What "Stupidity", liar?
Stupidity that prevents you from answering a simple question.
(see below)
I did answer it, liatr - you just didn't like the answer.
Like most believers of the brainwashed kind, you insist that it is the
truth, when it's just your religious belief.
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
No, moron, outside their heads it is WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE BELIEVES TO BE
TRUE.
I asked you to give an example of a middle ground between true
and false. Until you do you're just mouth fartin.
And I gave it to you, moron.
Here's a major clue that you have already ignored: BY INSISTING THAT
IT CAN ONLY BE TRUE OR FALSE YOU FORCE IT TO BE FALSE, BECAUSE IT
AIN'T TRUE. I've already explained this. And if you force that
dichotomy then you should not whine when it is called a lie.
BUT - it is a member of a family of religious beliefs. Not
substantively different from what the other religions and their
members believe to be true.
Feel free to demonstrate that theirs are false and yours true - using
real word evidence.
I really don't know why you have so much difficulty understanding
this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
01 Sep 2003 09:41:24 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 03:48:07 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What "Stupidity", liar?
Stupidity that prevents you from answering a simple question.
(see below)
I did answer it, liatr - you just didn't like the answer.
You'rer calling a mouth fart an answer doesn't make it one.
Like most believers of the brainwashed kind, you insist that it is the
truth, when it's just your religious belief.
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
No, moron, outside their heads it is WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE BELIEVES TO BE
TRUE.
I asked you to give an example of a middle ground between true
and false. Until you do you're just mouth fartin.
And I gave it to you, moron.
No, you offered up a mouth fart.
Here's a major clue that you have already ignored: BY INSISTING THAT
IT CAN ONLY BE TRUE OR FALSE YOU FORCE IT TO BE FALSE, BECAUSE IT
AIN'T TRUE. I've already explained this. And if you force that
dichotomy then you should not whine when it is called a lie.
If you can stop mouth fartin, which I doubt, and give an
example of a middle ground between true and false,
feel free to give me a jingle. Till then you're just wasting
my time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
01 Sep 2003 09:53:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 14:41:24 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 03:48:07 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What "Stupidity", liar?
Stupidity that prevents you from answering a simple question.
(see below)
I did answer it, liatr - you just didn't like the answer.
You'rer calling a mouth fart an answer doesn't make it one.
And neither does your calling it a mouth fart mean it isn't one.
I've explained why it is neither true nor false. You haven't addressed
that - just dismissed it as a "mouth fart".
Confirming the dishonesty you first demonstrated when you called what
is merely your religious belief "the truth".
Either demonstrate that it is actually the truth, or admit it is just
your religious belief.
Like most believers of the brainwashed kind, you insist that it is the
truth, when it's just your religious belief.
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
No, moron, outside their heads it is WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE BELIEVES TO BE
TRUE.
I asked you to give an example of a middle ground between true
and false. Until you do you're just mouth fartin.
And I gave it to you, moron.
No, you offered up a mouth fart.
What does your religion say about bearing false witness, hypocrite?
I've just noticed to whom I'm replying. I have no idea how you escaped
the killfile. You're a well-known, nasty, Liar For God, who has no
idea of the place of his religion in the real world, and who retreats
into nastiness rather than addressing what people explain to him.
Here's a major clue that you have already ignored: BY INSISTING THAT
IT CAN ONLY BE TRUE OR FALSE YOU FORCE IT TO BE FALSE, BECAUSE IT
AIN'T TRUE. I've already explained this. And if you force that
dichotomy then you should not whine when it is called a lie.
If you can stop mouth fartin, which I doubt, and give an
example of a middle ground between true and false,
feel free to give me a jingle. Till then you're just wasting
my time.
Bwaaaahahahahahahahaha... the last resort of the lying hypocrite. I'm
wasting HIS time.
Look, moron, pointing out YOUR false dichotomy is showing you and your
religion more respect than either of you deserve.
If you exclude the middle then BY DEFINITION is a lie, because it is
obviously NOT "the truth". And you've forced me to say this:
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
01 Sep 2003 11:40:11 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 14:41:24 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 03:48:07 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What "Stupidity", liar?
Stupidity that prevents you from answering a simple question.
(see below)
I did answer it, liatr - you just didn't like the answer.
You'rer calling a mouth fart an answer doesn't make it one.
And neither does your calling it a mouth fart mean it isn't one.
I've explained why it is neither true nor false. You haven't addressed
that - just dismissed it as a "mouth fart".
You've "explained" nothing until you come up with an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Confirming the dishonesty you first demonstrated when you called what
is merely your religious belief "the truth".
I don't recall making that claim in this discussion... citation please?
Either demonstrate that it is actually the truth, or admit it is just
your religious belief.
As humans, that's all each of us has... you included.
Like most believers of the brainwashed kind, you insist that it is the
truth, when it's just your religious belief.
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
No, moron, outside their heads it is WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE BELIEVES TO BE
TRUE.
I asked you to give an example of a middle ground between true
and false. Until you do you're just mouth fartin.
And I gave it to you, moron.
No, you offered up a mouth fart.
What does your religion say about bearing false witness, hypocrite?
Until you provide an example of a middle ground between
true and false, you're mouth farting.
I've just noticed to whom I'm replying. I have no idea how you escaped
the killfile. You're a well-known, nasty, Liar For God, who has no
idea of the place of his religion in the real world, and
Do you know the place of your religion in the world?
who retreats
into nastiness rather than addressing what people explain to him.
Sure, accuse others of your own crimes.
Here's a major clue that you have already ignored: BY INSISTING THAT
IT CAN ONLY BE TRUE OR FALSE YOU FORCE IT TO BE FALSE, BECAUSE IT
AIN'T TRUE. I've already explained this. And if you force that
dichotomy then you should not whine when it is called a lie.
If you can stop mouth fartin, which I doubt, and give an
example of a middle ground between true and false,
feel free to give me a jingle. Till then you're just wasting
my time.
Bwaaaahahahahahahahaha... the last resort of the lying hypocrite. I'm
wasting HIS time.
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose time you waste.
However, fortunately for me there's a remedy.
Look, moron, pointing out YOUR false dichotomy is showing you and your
religion more respect than either of you deserve.
If you exclude the middle then BY DEFINITION is a lie, because it is
obviously NOT "the truth". And you've forced me to say this:
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
You've just proven yourself a nut case.
Bye bye.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
01 Sep 2003 05:43:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:40:11 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I gave it, moron. It is something that is NEITHER true nor false - but
something SOME PEOPLE believe to be true.
That's your answer? And you have the stupidity to call
someone other than yourself a moron?
What "Stupidity", liar?
Stupidity that prevents you from answering a simple question.
(see below)
I did answer it, liatr - you just didn't like the answer.
You'rer calling a mouth fart an answer doesn't make it one.
And neither does your calling it a mouth fart mean it isn't one.
I've explained why it is neither true nor false. You haven't addressed
that - just dismissed it as a "mouth fart".
You've "explained" nothing until you come up with an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Are you blind as well as a stupid liar?
What part of "IT IS SOMETHNG YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE" didn't you
understand? You believe it. But that does NOT make it true. Or false.
Confirming the dishonesty you first demonstrated when you called what
is merely your religious belief "the truth".
I don't recall making that claim in this discussion... citation please?
I checked. You started lying when I responded to somebody who had mad
ethat claim. But it's hard to tell the difference between you
religious loonies.
Either demonstrate that it is actually the truth, or admit it is just
your religious belief.
As humans, that's all each of us has... you included.
What am I supposed to "admit", liar? I have no religion and no
religious blief.
Like most believers of the brainwashed kind, you insist that it is the
truth, when it's just your religious belief.
What 'some people believe to be true' is either true or
false... no middle ground... get it?
No, moron, outside their heads it is WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE BELIEVES TO BE
TRUE.
I asked you to give an example of a middle ground between true
and false. Until you do you're just mouth fartin.
And I gave it to you, moron.
No, you offered up a mouth fart.
What does your religion say about bearing false witness, hypocrite?
Until you provide an example of a middle ground between
true and false, you're mouth farting.
I gave one. Either address it or admit you're trolling.
I've just noticed to whom I'm replying. I have no idea how you escaped
the killfile. You're a well-known, nasty, Liar For God, who has no
idea of the place of his religion in the real world, and
Do you know the place of your religion in the world?
I don't have one, liar.
who retreats
into nastiness rather than addressing what people explain to him.
Sure, accuse others of your own crimes.
Aother of your lies, hypocrite.
Here's a major clue that you have already ignored: BY INSISTING THAT
IT CAN ONLY BE TRUE OR FALSE YOU FORCE IT TO BE FALSE, BECAUSE IT
AIN'T TRUE. I've already explained this. And if you force that
dichotomy then you should not whine when it is called a lie.
If you can stop mouth fartin, which I doubt, and give an
example of a middle ground between true and false,
feel free to give me a jingle. Till then you're just wasting
my time.
Bwaaaahahahahahahahaha... the last resort of the lying hypocrite. I'm
wasting HIS time.
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose time you waste.
However, fortunately for me there's a remedy.
It's called learning to read for comprehension, but that takes
learning to think first.
Look, moron, pointing out YOUR false dichotomy is showing you and your
religion more respect than either of you deserve.
If you exclude the middle then BY DEFINITION is a lie, because it is
obviously NOT "the truth". And you've forced me to say this:
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE. ROY JOSE LORR BELIEVES A LIE.
You've just proven yourself a nut case.
And you've just proven yourself an imbecile who is incapable of
reading for comprehension.
Bye bye.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
02 Sep 2003 05:15:56 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
<snipped>
You've "explained" nothing until you come up with an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Maybe you think Christopher A. Lee is speaking some sort of foreign
language that you can't follow, so let me try to translate it into
simpler words even *you* can understand: He *never* said there was
any middle ground between true and false.
What he said (wrote) was -
"It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth."
What he was trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you was that there
is no true/false dichotomy when you are dealing with religious
beliefs. They can't all be true (as each insists) so they must all be
false (according to the thinking which goes: "My religion is true,
yours is false.") Get it now? The "middle ground" (as Christopher A.
tried to explain several times) is that *all* religious beliefs are
*opinions* and are, therefore, neither true *nor* false. (The middle
ground between "My religion is true!" "No, it isn't, mine is!")
It doesn't seem that hard a concept, really.
<snip>
Bwaaaahahahahahahahaha... the last resort of the lying hypocrite. I'm
wasting HIS time.
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose time you waste.
However, fortunately for me there's a remedy.
Yeah, you can shut the ***** up.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
02 Sep 2003 06:35:05 PM |
|
|
AuntieLib wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
<snipped>
You've "explained" nothing until you come up with an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Maybe you think Christopher A. Lee is speaking some sort of foreign
language that you can't follow, so let me try to translate it into
simpler words even *you* can understand: He *never* said there was
any middle ground between true and false.
What he said (wrote) was -
"It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth."
Its you who doesn''t understand. He brought up "middle ground"
as if there is one. Can you provide an example of a middle
ground between true and false or belief and disbelief. Until
you do, your just another mouth farter like Christopher a lee.
What he was trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you was that there
is no true/false dichotomy when you are dealing with religious
beliefs. They can't all be true (as each insists) so they must all be
false (according to the thinking which goes: "My religion is true,
yours is false.") Get it now? The "middle ground" (as Christopher A.
tried to explain several times) is that *all* religious beliefs are
*opinions* and are, therefore, neither true *nor* false. (The middle
ground between "My religion is true!" "No, it isn't, mine is!")
As I told mouth farter #1 a persons true or false opinion is not an
example of a middle ground between true and false. Give an
example of a middle ground between true and false, or stop
mouth fartin. Nothing in this world is 'neither true nor false'...
get it?
It doesn't seem that hard a concept, really.
You're having lottsa trouble with it.
<snip>
Bwaaaahahahahahahahaha... the last resort of the lying hypocrite. I'm
wasting HIS time.
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose time you waste.
However, fortunately for me there's a remedy.
Yeah, you can shut the ***** up.
And you can begin searching for the slug you keep for a brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
03 Sep 2003 01:35:53 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
You've "explained" nothing until you come up with an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Maybe you think Christopher A. Lee is speaking some sort of foreign
language that you can't follow, so let me try to translate it into
simpler words even *you* can understand: He *never* said there was
any middle ground between true and false.
What he said (wrote) was -
"It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth."
Its you who doesn''t understand. He brought up "middle ground"
as if there is one.
There is. You just don't recognize it as such. It exists in between
one person's claim that their religion is the only true one and
another person's claim that their religion is the only true one. It's
called "You Can't Both Be Right So You're Both Wrong."
Can you provide an example of a middle ground between true and false or
belief and disbelief.
No. But that's not what we're discussing here and I'm beginning to
think you know that. (I mean, nobody could be *that* thick.) The
belief that one's religion is "true" while others' is "false" is a
FALSE dichotomy. Meaning, the dichotomy doesn't exist because NEITHER
opinion is true or false, since they are only opinions. Is that
simple enough for you? That is the "middle ground." Maybe he
should've used "third option" instead of middle ground and you'd be
less confused? (I doubt it but, we live in hope.)
Until you do, your just another mouth farter like Christopher a lee.
Cute phrase. Meaningless (like much of what you post) but cute.
What he was trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you was that there
is no true/false dichotomy when you are dealing with religious
beliefs. They can't all be true (as each insists) so they must all be
false (according to the thinking which goes: "My religion is true,
yours is false.") Get it now? The "middle ground" (as Christopher A.
tried to explain several times) is that *all* religious beliefs are
*opinions* and are, therefore, neither true *nor* false. (The middle
ground between "My religion is true!" "No, it isn't, mine is!")
As I told mouth farter #1 a persons true or false opinion is not an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Since he never said that, who gives a *****?
Give an example of a middle ground between true and false, or stop
mouth fartin. Nothing in this world is 'neither true nor false'...
get it?
Religious belief is neither true nor false. Opinions are neither true
nor false. (My belief/opinion that the color blue is the *best* color
is neither true nor false.) Do *you* get it?
It doesn't seem that hard a concept, really.
You're having lottsa trouble with it.
Since I'm the one who explained it to you, and you're the one who
*still* doesn't understand, I'd say you've got that bass-ackwards,
Skippy.
<snip>
Bwaaaahahahahahahahaha... the last resort of the lying hypocrite. I'm
wasting HIS time.
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose time you waste.
However, fortunately for me there's a remedy.
Yeah, you can shut the ***** up.
And you can begin searching for the slug you keep for a brain.
Please read "Insults for Dummies" before posting here in future. You
need better material since you come off like a socially-retarded
twelve-year-old. (If you really are twelve, and this is really the
best you can do, I apologize. If you're not twelve, grow up and learn
how to argue successfully. Oh... and some logic basics would help.
And reading comprehension. And grammar and spelling. Aww, hell.
Give up trying to argue around here *altogether*. 'Cuz, dude, you
suck at it.)
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
03 Sep 2003 08:24:28 PM |
|
|
AuntieLib wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
You've "explained" nothing until you come up with an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Maybe you think Christopher A. Lee is speaking some sort of foreign
language that you can't follow, so let me try to translate it into
simpler words even *you* can understand: He *never* said there was
any middle ground between true and false.
What he said (wrote) was -
"It also introduces a truth/falsehood dichotomy where there isn't one.
By excluding the middle ground of "what some people believe to be
true" it forces it to be a lie, because it isn't the truth."
Its you who doesn''t understand. He brought up "middle ground"
as if there is one.
There is. You just don't recognize it as such. It exists in between
one person's claim that their religion is the only true one and
another person's claim that their religion is the only true one. It's
called "You Can't Both Be Right So You're Both Wrong."
That's not a middle ground. What it is is merely another
opinion that is either right or wrong.
Can you provide an example of a middle ground between true and false or
belief and disbelief.
No. But that's not what we're discussing here and I'm beginning to
think you know that.
I know that you're trying unsuccessfully to support a rationale for
moral relativism. It doesn't work unless you can demonstrate a
middle ground between opposites.
(I mean, nobody could be *that* thick.)
Accusing others of one's own intellectual shortcomings is par for
liberal discourse.
The
belief that one's religion is "true" while others' is "false" is a
FALSE dichotomy. Meaning, the dichotomy doesn't exist because NEITHER
opinion is true or false, since they are only opinions.
"Dichotomy" requires only a division of opinions into two usually
contradictory parts. In other words there is dichotomy between
conflicting opinions as to whose religion is right or wrong.
Perhaps the meaning of "dichotomy" eludes you.
Is that
simple enough for you? That is the "middle ground." Maybe he
should've used "third option" instead of middle ground and you'd be
less confused? (I doubt it but, we live in hope.)
A third opinion is not a middle ground... its merely another right
or wrong opinion. Additional opinions are not indicative of a
middle ground. (see above).
Until you do, your just another mouth farter like Christopher a lee.
Cute phrase. Meaningless (like much of what you post) but cute.
Stop squealing like a stuck pig and give an example of a middle
ground between the opposites "true" and "false". Until you do
you're mouth fartin.
What he was trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you was that there
is no true/false dichotomy when you are dealing with religious
beliefs. They can't all be true (as each insists) so they must all be
false (according to the thinking which goes: "My religion is true,
yours is false.") Get it now? The "middle ground" (as Christopher A.
tried to explain several times) is that *all* religious beliefs are
*opinions* and are, therefore, neither true *nor* false. (The middle
ground between "My religion is true!" "No, it isn't, mine is!")
As I told mouth farter #1 a persons true or false opinion is not an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Since he never said that, who gives a *****?
You do.
Give an example of a middle ground between true and false, or stop
mouth fartin. Nothing in this world is 'neither true nor false'...
get it?
Religious belief is neither true nor false. Opinions are neither true
nor false. (My belief/opinion that the color blue is the *best* color
is neither true nor false.) Do *you* get it?
Is that your opinion?... is it true or false? Moral relativism
is intellectual nonsense.
It doesn't seem that hard a concept, really.
You're having lottsa trouble with it.
Since I'm the one who explained it to you, and you're the one who
*still* doesn't understand, I'd say you've got that bass-ackwards,
Skippy.
Your explanation is nonsense unless you can give an
example of a middle ground between the opposites
"true" and "false". Until then your mouth fartin.
<snip>
Bwaaaahahahahahahahaha... the last resort of the lying hypocrite. I'm
wasting HIS time.
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose time you waste.
However, fortunately for me there's a remedy.
Yeah, you can shut the ***** up.
And you can begin searching for the slug you keep for a brain.
Please read "Insults for Dummies" before posting here in future. You
need better material since you come off like a socially-retarded
twelve-year-old. (If you really are twelve, and this is really the
best you can do, I apologize. If you're not twelve, grow up and learn
how to argue successfully. Oh... and some logic basics would help.
And reading comprehension. And grammar and spelling. Aww, hell.
Give up trying to argue around here *altogether*. 'Cuz, dude, you
suck at it.)
Stop whining and puling and give an example of a middle
ground between the opposites "true' and "false". Till
then you're mouth fartin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
05 Sep 2003 01:15:16 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
(Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. Work *so* gets in the
way of life sometimes!)
<snip>
There is. You just don't recognize it as such. It exists in between
one person's claim that their religion is the only true one and
another person's claim that their religion is the only true one. It's
called "You Can't Both Be Right So You're Both Wrong."
That's not a middle ground. What it is is merely another
opinion that is either right or wrong.
It is a *fact* that opinions can be neither right nor wrong. (That is
why they're called opinions; they can not be objectively verified or
proven.)
Please, if you will, provide me with an example of an opinion that is
either objectively "true" or objectively "false." (Either one. You
choose.)
Can you provide an example of a middle ground between true and false or
belief and disbelief.
No. But that's not what we're discussing here and I'm beginning to
think you know that.
I know that you're trying unsuccessfully to support a rationale for
moral relativism. It doesn't work unless you can demonstrate a
middle ground between opposites.
Nobody is talking about "moral relativism" here. We are arguing your
insistance that anybody said there was a middle ground between "true"
and "false." That is not the case. (I even provided you with the
relevant quote but you ignored it.) We are taking about the middle
ground between opposing (and mutually exclusive) *opinions*. That is
a very different kettle of you-know-what.
<snip>
A third opinion is not a middle ground... its merely another right
or wrong opinion.
See definition of "opinion" for the reason this sentence makes no
sense.
Additional opinions are not indicative of a middle ground. (see above).
Stating that the *opinion* that one's religion is objectively true is
*not* an opinion. It is a fact.
Cute phrase. Meaningless (like much of what you post) but cute.
Stop squealing like a stuck pig and give an example of a middle
ground between the opposites "true" and "false". Until you do
you're mouth fartin.
See, here's where a knowledge of insults would come in handy for you.
I am typing on a keyboard which translates into symbols that you read.
I am not speaking. So no mouth - thus no escaping air - is involved.
Get it? Insults must be relevant or potentially true to be
effective. This one is just lame. (On a par with "Your mama wears
combat boots!" only not nearly as funny.)
As I told mouth farter #1 a persons true or false opinion is not an
example of a middle ground between true and false.
Since he never said that, who gives a *****?
You do.
Not really, no. I care that you continue to lie so obviously by
insisting that anyone said there was anything between "true" and
"false." It makes you seem like a troll and anything you want to
contribute is ignored because of this trollish insistance on
confirming a lie while ignoring the *real* points I made.
Only twelve-year-olds insist that anyone gets upset or takes Usenet
posting all that seriously. The grownups know this isn't the case
because... we have lives. (Twelve-year-olds - and shut-ins - don't.)
Give an example of a middle ground between true and false, or stop
mouth fartin. Nothing in this world is 'neither true nor false'...
get it?
Religious belief is neither true nor false. Opinions are neither true
nor false. (My belief/opinion that the color blue is the *best* color
is neither true nor false.) Do *you* get it?
Is that your opinion?... is it true or false?
It isn't either objectively true *or* objectively false. It's my
opinion. (Maybe the problem is that you can't distinguish your own
opinions from fact and assume others do, as well. That's not true. I
have lots of opinions on lots of subjects. *None* of them are
objectively verifiable as fact or falsehood BECAUSE THEY'RE OPINIONS.)
Moral relativism is intellectual nonsense.
You have, of course, heard of the ubiquitous Strawman? Well, there he
is, in the flesh. (So to speak.)
<snip>
Please read "Insults for Dummies" before posting here in future. You
need better material since you come off like a socially-retarded
twelve-year-old. (If you really are twelve, and this is really the
best you can do, I apologize. If you're not twelve, grow up and learn
how to argue successfully. Oh... and some logic basics would help.
And reading comprehension. And grammar and spelling. Aww, hell.
Give up trying to argue around here *altogether*. 'Cuz, dude, you
suck at it.)
Stop whining and puling and give an example of a middle
ground between the opposites "true' and "false". Till
then you're mouth fartin.
You're hopeless, you know that? You're either a dishonest troll or
retarded. The fact that you only have two insults that you use over
and over ("slug" and "mouth fart") leads me to believe that you are
really young and inexperienced in grownup debate. Only time will cure
that.
I'll wait...
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
06 Sep 2003 10:34:51 AM |
|
|
"AuntieLib" <wallenbrock@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cbadfc8f.0309051015.1d4d5675@posting.google.com...
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
(Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. Work *so* gets in the
way of life sometimes!)
<snip>
There is. You just don't recognize it as such. It exists in between
one person's claim that their religion is the only true one and
another person's claim that their religion is the only true one. It's
called "You Can't Both Be Right So You're Both Wrong."
That's not a middle ground. What it is is merely another
opinion that is either right or wrong.
It is a *fact* that opinions can be neither right nor wrong. (That is
why they're called opinions; they can not be objectively verified or
proven.)
There are things in this world that are subjective.
For example, the aesthetics of artwork is subjective
Someone might say "That is a nice painting".
Someone else might say "That is NOT a nice painting".
In THIS case the opinions are neither true nor false.
There aree things in this world that are NOT subjective:
they are objective.
For example, the shape of the earth is objective.
Someone might say "The earth is round like a ball."
Someone else might say "No. The earth is flat."
Someone else might say "Well, strictly speaking the
first guy is closer to correct. The earth is LIKE a ball
but it bulges around the equator so it is not a perfect
sphere."
Now in THIS example an opinion could be RIGHT
and an opinion could be WRONG.
Now, I personally would say that the existence of God
(capital G) is objective. Thus opinions about the existence
of God are either RIGHT or WRONG. And the question
"Does God exist?" is a question about objective reality.
On the other hand, "gods" (small g) are could be:
(From www.realdictionary.com
n :a material effigy that is worshipped as a god
Example: money was his god
In this case, the god is purely subjective to the
person. So in this case a question like "Does
god (ie. money) exist?" doesn't even come
up.
But I think that there is a difference between the
two questions:
(1) "Does God (some supernatural entity) exist?"
which is an objective question and would have
a clear yes or no answer if God were defined
precisely enough.
and
(2) "Does god (ie. his money) exist?"
to which the answer would be "Well, yes money
exists, but that question really misses the point."
I think Christopher A. Lee's argument that
"God is just something from somebody else's
belief system and thus the question of its
existence doesn't come up" is a red-herring.
I would say his argument is actually
"god (small g) is just something from somebody else's
belief system and thus the question of its
existence doesn't come up"
But his argument does not address
"Does God (capital G, a supernatural entity) exist?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
08 Sep 2003 05:21:42 PM |
|
|
Scot McDermid wrote:
It is a *fact* that opinions can be neither right nor wrong. (That is
why they're called opinions; they can not be objectively verified or
proven.)
There are things in this world that are subjective.
For example, the aesthetics of artwork is subjective
Someone might say "That is a nice painting".
Someone else might say "That is NOT a nice painting".
In THIS case the opinions are neither true nor false.
Right so far.
There aree things in this world that are NOT subjective:
they are objective.
For example, the shape of the earth is objective.
Someone might say "The earth is round like a ball."
Someone else might say "No. The earth is flat."
Someone else might say "Well, strictly speaking the
first guy is closer to correct. The earth is LIKE a ball
but it bulges around the equator so it is not a perfect
sphere."
Now in THIS example an opinion could be RIGHT
and an opinion could be WRONG.
Only one of your three statements was an opinion. The first two were
statements of fact. (One true the other false.) The third one,
describing the shape of the earth in relative terms, is an opinion
and, like all opinions, is only "right" if one agrees with it. (I
happen to think the earth's shape closer to that of a quava melon, but
that's just me.)
Yes, the earth's shape is objective (after all, we have pictures) but
how one describes it, and in what terms, is an opinion.
Now, I personally would say that the existence of God
(capital G) is objective.
And that is your opinion. If you disagree, just offer objective proof
that this "God" exists.
Thus opinions about the existence of God are either RIGHT or WRONG.
Really? Prove that your opinion that "God" exists is "right." (To do
this you must prove "God" is objectively real. Good luck with that.)
And the question "Does God exist?" is a question about objective reality.
Yes, it is. But, without objective evidence, the answer one comes up
with is purely *subjective* and, therefore, an opinion.
<snip>
But I think that there is a difference between the
two questions:
(1) "Does God (some supernatural entity) exist?"
which is an objective question and would have
a clear yes or no answer if God were defined
precisely enough.
There is no objective evidence - none - that any "God" exists. Those
who believe this "God" exists are expressing an opinion on the matter,
based on subjective (anecdotal) reasons. Since it never has been, nor
will it ever be, objectively proven, whether "God" exists or not is
purely an opinion.
and
(2) "Does god (ie. his money) exist?"
to which the answer would be "Well, yes money
exists, but that question really misses the point."
Yes, it does miss the point. (As well as bringing in a whole new
*opinion* on the subject of what constitutes "god.")
I think Christopher A. Lee's argument that
"God is just something from somebody else's
belief system and thus the question of its
existence doesn't come up" is a red-herring.
Actually, it *was* the point.
I would say his argument is actually
"god (small g) is just something from somebody else's
belief system and thus the question of its
existence doesn't come up"
But his argument does not address
"Does God (capital G, a supernatural entity) exist?"
You have taken his argument and totally changed it to suit your own
belief system. Whether we are talking about "God" or gods, his
original point was that they exist only in someone else's subjective
belief system. That they are, in fact, opinions.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
09 Sep 2003 11:51:34 AM |
|
|
"AuntieLib" <wallenbrock@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cbadfc8f.0309081421.15409ac2@posting.google.com...
Scot McDermid wrote:
It is a *fact* that opinions can be neither right nor wrong. (That is
why they're called opinions; they can not be objectively verified or
proven.)
There are things in this world that are subjective.
For example, the aesthetics of artwork is subjective
Someone might say "That is a nice painting".
Someone else might say "That is NOT a nice painting".
In THIS case the opinions are neither true nor false.
Right so far.
There aree things in this world that are NOT subjective:
they are objective.
For example, the shape of the earth is objective.
Someone might say "The earth is round like a ball."
Someone else might say "No. The earth is flat."
Someone else might say "Well, strictly speaking the
first guy is closer to correct. The earth is LIKE a ball
but it bulges around the equator so it is not a perfect
sphere."
Now in THIS example an opinion could be RIGHT
and an opinion could be WRONG.
Only one of your three statements was an opinion. The first two were
statements of fact. (One true the other false.) The third one,
describing the shape of the earth in relative terms, is an opinion
and, like all opinions, is only "right" if one agrees with it. (I
happen to think the earth's shape closer to that of a quava melon, but
that's just me.)
Yes, the earth's shape is objective (after all, we have pictures) but
how one describes it, and in what terms, is an opinion.
You just said "How one describes it, and in what terms, is an opinion".
This is contrary to what you said above: That only one of the statements
is an opinion. I would say that all three statements are opinions. And
yes, my last sentence is itself an opinion.
Whether I use the words "All three statements are opinions" or I
use the words "In my opinion, all three statements are opinions"
both of those sentences are statements of MY opinion.
If I had written the third person's statement as
"The earth is LIKE a ball but it bulges around the equator so
it is not a perfect sphere."
would that make it one or your "true or false statements of fact" instead of
an opinion. Look at the following carefully:
You said "The earth is round like a ball." is not an opinion.
So is : "The earth is LIKE a ball but it bulges around the equator so
it is not a perfect sphere." an opinion or not?
If that is not an opinion then why is:
"Well, strictly speaking the first guy is closer to correct. The
earth is LIKE a ball but it bulges around the equator so it
is not a perfect sphere." an opinion?
Like I said, all three statements above are opinions. And all
three could be right or wrong.
Now, I personally would say that the existence of God
(capital G) is objective.
Thus opinions about the existence of God are either RIGHT or WRONG.
And that is your opinion. If you disagree, just offer objective proof
that this "God" exists.
I didn't say "God (capital G) exists". I said "the existence of God
(capital G) is objective". You just asked my for objective proof that
this
"God" exists and this treats God as something that may objective exist
or may not objectively exist. Without objective evidence that God exists
it is reasonable to conclude that God does NOT exist objectively.
And the question "Does God exist?" is a question about objective
reality.
Yes, it is. But, without objective evidence, the answer one comes up
with is purely *subjective* and, therefore, an opinion.
Just a little quibble: After searching for objective evidence, and finding
none, you can reasonably conclude that God does NOT exist objectively.
Of course *subjective belief* could remain.
But I think that there is a difference between the
two questions:
(1) "Does God (some supernatural entity) exist?"
which is an objective question and would have
a clear yes or no answer if God were defined
precisely enough.
There is no objective evidence - none - that any "God" exists. Those
who believe this "God" exists are expressing an opinion on the matter,
based on subjective (anecdotal) reasons. Since it never has been, nor
will it ever be, objectively proven, whether "God" exists or not is
purely an opinion.
and
(2) "Does god (ie. his money) exist?"
to which the answer would be "Well, yes money
exists, but that question really misses the point."
Yes, it does miss the point. (As well as bringing in a whole new
*opinion* on the subject of what constitutes "god.")
I think Christopher A. Lee's argument that
"God is just something from somebody else's
belief system and thus the question of its
existence doesn't come up" is a red-herring.
Actually, it *was* the point.
I would say his argument is actually
"god (small g) is just something from somebody else's
belief system and thus the question of its
existence doesn't come up"
But his argument does not address
"Does God (capital G, a supernatural entity) exist?"
You have taken his argument and totally changed it to suit your own
belief system. Whether we are talking about "God" or gods, his
original point was that they exist only in someone else's subjective
belief system. That they are, in fact, opinions.
Opinions about what is real, are either right or wrong.
But Christopher has been very carefully NOT to say
"they exist only in someone else's subjective belief system"
He will scream up and down that that is my strawman
because he didn't use the word "only". Christopher has
always been careful to make NO statement about the
objective existence of God or gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
10 Sep 2003 07:43:59 AM |
|
|
"Scot McDermid" wrote:
Without objective evidence that God exists
it is reasonable to conclude that God does NOT exist objectively.
What could this objective evidence be, and what does it mean to exist objectively?
Christopher has
always been careful to make NO statement about the
objective existence of God or gods.
Or the objective existence of Captain Kirk, apparently.
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
10 Sep 2003 07:45:51 PM |
|
|
On 10 Sep 2003 05:43:59 -0700, (Risto Karttunen) wrote:
"Scot McDermid" wrote:
Without objective evidence that God exists
it is reasonable to conclude that God does NOT exist objectively.
What could this objective evidence be,
That is a hypothetical question.
When (if ever) it ceases being hypothetical it will become an an
necessary question.
8-)
and what does it mean to exist objectively?
To be real, actual.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
11 Sep 2003 02:07:10 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote:
Risto Karttunen wrote:
What could this objective evidence be,
That is a hypothetical question.
When (if ever) it ceases being hypothetical it will become an an
necessary question.
8-)
Don't be evasive, please. I put the question this way: when Yuri
Gagarin came back from the first manned spaceflight, he said that he
had not seen God out there. Wouldn't it have been extremely bizarre to
think: either Gagarin's eyesight is bad or he didn't look out of the
right window? I really can't believe that anybody thought like that
(but *metaphorically* that makes sense, of course).
Now, is this the 'objective' evidence (i.e. the lack of it) which
Gagarin was talking about?
and what does it mean to exist objectively?
To be real, actual.
What should we do, if we want to convince other people that something
is real, actual?
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
12 Sep 2003 09:38:44 AM |
|
|
(Risto Karttunen) wrote in message news:<5c1b9d0f.0309102307.52030c04@posting.google.com>...
Mark Richardson wrote:
Risto Karttunen wrote:
What could this objective evidence be,
That is a hypothetical question.
When (if ever) it ceases being hypothetical it will become an an
necessary question.
8-)
Don't be evasive, please. I put the question this way: when Yuri
Gagarin came back from the first manned spaceflight, he said that he
had not seen God out there. Wouldn't it have been extremely bizarre to
think: either Gagarin's eyesight is bad or he didn't look out of the
right window? I really can't believe that anybody thought like that
(but *metaphorically* that makes sense, of course).
Now, is this the 'objective' evidence (i.e. the lack of it) which
Gagarin was talking about?
In order to determine whether there is evidence for God,
we must have a well defined God. This is something theists
refuse to do, so they will never be able to find good
evidence.
and what does it mean to exist objectively?
To be real, actual.
What should we do, if we want to convince other people that something
is real, actual?
show it to them. This is why we like to have reproducible results.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
13 Sep 2003 11:30:56 AM |
|
|
Lawrence Seib wrote:
In order to determine whether there is evidence for God,
we must have a well defined God. This is something theists
refuse to do
They don't *refuse* to do it. There just is so much in the world which
cannot be "well defined". Now we are not talking about "middle-sized
dry objects", as it were.
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Goodbye Judaism and Islam! |
15 Sep 2003 09:34:47 AM |
|
|
(Risto Karttunen) wrote in message news:<5c1b9d0f.0309130830.3a75b5ad@posting.google.com>...
Lawrence Seib wrote:
In order to determine whether there is evidence for God,
we must have a well defined God. This is something theists
refuse to do
They don't *refuse* to do it. There just is so much in the world which
cannot be "well defined". Now we are not talking about "middle-sized
dry objects", as it were.
If you are going to devote your life to something, I
think you ought to spend the time to define what
that thing is.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
