| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Gordon" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2006 04:36:03 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
"Mike Clark" <mrc7@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cab3c2eb4d.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.
Certainly the statement "religion can also provide children with a deep
sense of confidence from the teaching that they are each precious in
the eyes of God, of reverence for their gift of life and of ethical
bearings" brings back alternative memories of my childhood experience at
school
[snip]
The writer of that *****-poor article naturally failed to present the full
picture:
"Look here, little girl. The fact is that you're born into a condition of
sin. You're filth, and you need to be saved. But you're made in God's image,
and that makes you more special than any of the other animals that you have
a quite remarkable genetic relationship with. You also have an ethical sense
that makes you unique in the eyes of God. But don't think you can decide for
yourself what's right and what's wrong, because we are the ones who get to
tell you what to do. And if you don't do what we say, then God will make you
fry forever after you die. But he still loves you very, very much. Got that?
Right, any minute now you should be getting 'a deep sense of confidence'
from this teaching...".
Gord.
.
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 04:52:21 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:nvUzf.646$OI3.636@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
"Mike Clark" <mrc7@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cab3c2eb4d.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.
Certainly the statement "religion can also provide children with a deep
sense of confidence from the teaching that they are each precious in
the eyes of God, of reverence for their gift of life and of ethical
bearings" brings back alternative memories of my childhood experience at
school
[snip]
The writer of that *****-poor article naturally failed to present the full
picture:
"Look here, little girl. The fact is that you're born into a condition of
sin. You're filth, and you need to be saved. But you're made in God's
image, and that makes you more special than any of the other animals that
you have a quite remarkable genetic relationship with. You also have an
ethical sense that makes you unique in the eyes of God. But don't think
you can decide for yourself what's right and what's wrong, because we are
the ones who get to tell you what to do. And if you don't do what we say,
then God will make you fry forever after you die. But he still loves you
very, very much. Got that? Right, any minute now you should be getting 'a
deep sense of confidence' from this teaching...".
Gord.
Got to agree with you, this is a bit dubious, but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and accurate,
but there are some good aspects is all I am sayin, baby bathwater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Kilpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 04:36:53 AM |
|
|
JusUK wrote:
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:nvUzf.646$OI3.636@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
"Look here, little girl. The fact is that you're born into a condition of
sin. You're filth, and you need to be saved. But you're made in God's
image, and that makes you more special than any of the other animals that
you have a quite remarkable genetic relationship with. You also have an
ethical sense that makes you unique in the eyes of God. But don't think
you can decide for yourself what's right and what's wrong, because we are
the ones who get to tell you what to do. And if you don't do what we say,
then God will make you fry forever after you die. But he still loves you
very, very much. Got that? Right, any minute now you should be getting 'a
deep sense of confidence' from this teaching...".
Got to agree with you, this is a bit dubious,
Only a "bit"?????
but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and accurate,
but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 07:23:33 AM |
|
|
"Michael Kilpatrick" <michael@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:drOdnfIq9ZtRIU3enZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
JusUK wrote:
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:nvUzf.646$OI3.636@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
"Look here, little girl. The fact is that you're born into a condition of
sin. You're filth, and you need to be saved. But you're made in God's
image, and that makes you more special than any of the other animals that
you have a quite remarkable genetic relationship with. You also have an
ethical sense that makes you unique in the eyes of God. But don't think
you can decide for yourself what's right and what's wrong, because we are
the ones who get to tell you what to do. And if you don't do what we say,
then God will make you fry forever after you die. But he still loves you
very, very much. Got that? Right, any minute now you should be getting 'a
deep sense of confidence' from this teaching...".
Got to agree with you, this is a bit dubious,
Only a "bit"?????
Actually quite a bit.
but you forget to mention the apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right
this is horrific and accurate, but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Michael
I am just getting a bit sick of explaining every little detail. Why don't
you read the bible or something and find out for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Kilpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 09:01:51 AM |
|
|
JusUK wrote:
"Michael Kilpatrick" <michael@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:drOdnfIq9ZtRIU3enZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Michael
I am just getting a bit sick of explaining every little detail. Why don't
you read the bible or something and find out for yourself.
I'm not sure that reading the bible will help. It will only tell me the
benefits of believing in a god. It won't tell me why I should believe
that no similar benefits could be derived from not believing in a god.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 09:08:54 AM |
|
|
"Michael Kilpatrick" <michael@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V7CdnQ4PV7h7Z03eRVnyrw@pipex.net...
JusUK wrote:
"Michael Kilpatrick" <michael@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:drOdnfIq9ZtRIU3enZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Michael
I am just getting a bit sick of explaining every little detail. Why don't
you read the bible or something and find out for yourself.
I'm not sure that reading the bible will help. It will only tell me the
benefits of believing in a god. It won't tell me why I should believe that
no similar benefits could be derived from not believing in a god.
Michael
Well give it go and find out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Francis Turton" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 06:40:46 AM |
|
|
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and accurate,
but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
same thing as saying they are in any way immoral or amoral people.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 02:08:25 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2006 04:40:46 -0800, "Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1137760846.405097.298140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and accurate,
but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
That is your (incorrect) opinion.
Luminary atheists such Carl Sagan, Dawkins, and so-on do not agree
with you.
(As do I not agree with you)
You are just plainly and provably wrong, with this assertion.
I would go as far as to say that it is an outright lie, on your
behalf, as you are no doubt aware of the many claims to the contrary.
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
same thing as saying they are in any way immoral or amoral people.
I focus on the probity of the claims made, and the objectionable
behaviour thereby generated, not the internal "beliefs".
Which includes, (but is in no way limited to):
outright lies, assualt, threats, fraud, deception, deprivation of
liberty, kidnapping and forcible detention, mob action, legalised
theft, non-consensual ritual mutilation and disfigurement, mental
torture, physical torture, abduction, murder, child-rape, obstructing
justice, adult rape, burning at the stake, war-crimes and genocide.
It is the behaviour that I criticise, and rightly so, too.
That it makes some people "feel good" in a vague and undefined
"spiritual" way, hardly makes up for the widespread and intrisic human
injustices, that are occurring today.
If your claim is that you do not participate in these crimes, consider
that by merely supporting a church that funds these activities, say
via donations and support to political parties, or even those who do
not actively seek to prevent such crimes, then you are tacitly
supporting them.
Is that a fair trade for "feeling good"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis Turton" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 07:07:46 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
That is your (incorrect) opinion.
Luminary atheists such Carl Sagan, Dawkins, and so-on do not agree
with you.
(As do I not agree with you)
You are just plainly and provably wrong, with this assertion.
I would go as far as to say that it is an outright lie, on your
behalf, as you are no doubt aware of the many claims to the contrary.
If I'm provably wrong, then kindly offer your proof. The thing is,
you're so convinced that what you say is true that you can't
And so what if Dawkins and Sagan don't agree with me? Certainly the
former I don't hold in very high esteem as a thinker anyhow. I don't
know exactly what Sagan's said about religion, but I do know he's not a
zealot and is prepared to change his stance on issues if presented with
compelling evidence (as he did on the issue of psychic phenomena).
I focus on the probity of the claims made, and the objectionable
behaviour thereby generated, not the internal "beliefs".
Which includes, (but is in no way limited to):
outright lies, assualt, threats, fraud, deception, deprivation of
liberty, kidnapping and forcible detention, mob action, legalised
theft, non-consensual ritual mutilation and disfigurement, mental
torture, physical torture, abduction, murder, child-rape, obstructing
justice, adult rape, burning at the stake, war-crimes and genocide.
It is the behaviour that I criticise, and rightly so, too.
Well fine, I entirely agree. I criticise (some of) the behaviour too.
That it makes some people "feel good" in a vague and undefined
"spiritual" way, hardly makes up for the widespread and intrisic human
injustices, that are occurring today.
If your claim is that you do not participate in these crimes, consider
that by merely supporting a church that funds these activities, say
via donations and support to political parties, or even those who do
not actively seek to prevent such crimes, then you are tacitly
supporting them.
I do not support any church and if I did, I would not choose one that
participated in any of the activities you describe.
I am not religious, I am merely arguing a case for religion.
Is that a fair trade for "feeling good"?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
23 Jan 2006 04:23:15 AM |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2006 05:07:46 -0800, "Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1137848866.667696.146230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
That is your (incorrect) opinion.
Luminary atheists such Carl Sagan, Dawkins, and so-on do not agree
with you.
(As do I not agree with you)
You are just plainly and provably wrong, with this assertion.
I would go as far as to say that it is an outright lie, on your
behalf, as you are no doubt aware of the many claims to the contrary.
If I'm provably wrong, then kindly offer your proof. The thing is,
you're so convinced that what you say is true that you can't
:
Too easy.
You wrote:
"Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of
morally unobjectionable rules for behaviour... can do that."
I, personally, have a simple list of rules which gives me a "spiritual
dimension to life".
The "no simple list" assertion is quite wrong.
Q.E.D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Francis Turton" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 07:13:25 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
That is your (incorrect) opinion.
Luminary atheists such Carl Sagan, Dawkins, and so-on do not agree
with you.
(As do I not agree with you)
You are just plainly and provably wrong, with this assertion.
I would go as far as to say that it is an outright lie, on your
behalf, as you are no doubt aware of the many claims to the contrary.
If I'm provably wrong, then kindly offer your proof. The thing is,
you're so convinced that what you say is true that you can't see when
you're merely making unsubstantiated assertions rather than presenting
intellectual arguments.
And so what if Dawkins and Sagan don't agree with me? Certainly the
former I don't hold in very high esteem as a thinker anyhow. I don't
know exactly what Sagan's said about religion, but I do know he's not a
zealot and is prepared to change his stance on issues if presented with
compelling evidence (as he did on the issue of psychic phenomena).
I focus on the probity of the claims made, and the objectionable
behaviour thereby generated, not the internal "beliefs".
Which includes, (but is in no way limited to):
outright lies, assualt, threats, fraud, deception, deprivation of
liberty, kidnapping and forcible detention, mob action, legalised
theft, non-consensual ritual mutilation and disfigurement, mental
torture, physical torture, abduction, murder, child-rape, obstructing
justice, adult rape, burning at the stake, war-crimes and genocide.
It is the behaviour that I criticise, and rightly so, too.
Well fine, I entirely agree. I criticise (some of) the behaviour too.
That it makes some people "feel good" in a vague and undefined
"spiritual" way, hardly makes up for the widespread and intrisic human
injustices, that are occurring today.
If your claim is that you do not participate in these crimes, consider
that by merely supporting a church that funds these activities, say
via donations and support to political parties, or even those who do
not actively seek to prevent such crimes, then you are tacitly
supporting them.
I do not support any church and if I did, I would not choose one that
participated in any of the activities you describe.
I am not religious, I am merely arguing a case for religion.
Is that a fair trade for "feeling good"?
No.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 06:44:57 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2006 04:40:46 -0800, "Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com>
wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and accurate,
but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
What's a "spiritual dimension" apart from meaningless gobbledygook?
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
Why lie? You know perfectly well it's a reactionthat wouldn't even
happen if they kept it to themselves.
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
same thing as saying they are in any way immoral or amoral people.
Nobody would give a toss about somebody else's religion if they didn't
push it where it is neither wanted nor needed, or bolster their
followers by slandering others.
It's a reaction that would
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 07:27:24 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:8km1t19sfuf42tk27u6oq6sdc84lv5m00o@4ax.com...
On 20 Jan 2006 04:40:46 -0800, "Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com>
wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and
accurate,
but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
What's a "spiritual dimension" apart from meaningless gobbledygook?
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
Why lie? You know perfectly well it's a reactionthat wouldn't even
happen if they kept it to themselves.
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
Actually there are many things that cannot be understood unless they are
experienced, the taste of a tomato, the sound of wind in the leaves, why
yellow things are different from green things. In fact now I think about it
there is very little in lkife that can be understood without directly
experiencing them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 09:20:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:27:24 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:8km1t19sfuf42tk27u6oq6sdc84lv5m00o@4ax.com...
On 20 Jan 2006 04:40:46 -0800, "Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com>
wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and
accurate,
but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be a
god in the first place.
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
What's a "spiritual dimension" apart from meaningless gobbledygook?
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
Why lie? You know perfectly well it's a reactionthat wouldn't even
happen if they kept it to themselves.
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
Actually there are many things that cannot be understood unless they are
experienced, the taste of a tomato, the sound of wind in the leaves, why
yellow things are different from green things. In fact now I think about it
there is very little in lkife that can be understood without directly
experiencing them.
And it's still meaningless gobbledygook used by believers to pretend
they've got something that makes them better than the rest of us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 09:28:41 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vsv1t15ogc9jeof0hi1tbj9fqi84p411p1@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:27:24 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:8km1t19sfuf42tk27u6oq6sdc84lv5m00o@4ax.com...
On 20 Jan 2006 04:40:46 -0800, "Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com>
wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
but you forget to mention the
apparent forgiveness etc. No, you are right this is horrific and
accurate,
but there are some good aspects
Where? Don't just say it: explain it. I can't see anything good in
this
that couldn't be achieved by a system that doesn't require there to be
a
god in the first place.
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
What's a "spiritual dimension" apart from meaningless gobbledygook?
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
Why lie? You know perfectly well it's a reactionthat wouldn't even
happen if they kept it to themselves.
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
Actually there are many things that cannot be understood unless they are
experienced, the taste of a tomato, the sound of wind in the leaves, why
yellow things are different from green things. In fact now I think about
it
there is very little in lkife that can be understood without directly
experiencing them.
And it's still meaningless gobbledygook used by believers to pretend
they've got something that makes them better than the rest of us.
I think that is right sometimes, about the misuse I mean. I must admit I
never thought that jealousy and a sense of inferiority played such a part in
some people's atheism. Interesting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Ellis" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 11:10:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And it's still meaningless gobbledygook used by believers to pretend
they've got something that makes them better than the rest of us.
I'm a hardcore reductionist scientist, in particular a molecular
geneticist investigating how evolution alters (and is altered by)
particular biological processes.
I have also had spiritual experiences, but do not believe in God (at
least, not as described by any major religion).
These are not irreconcilable attitudes.
Peter
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 11:28:52 AM |
|
|
"Peter Ellis" <pjie2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0601201707050.1569@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And it's still meaningless gobbledygook used by believers to pretend
they've got something that makes them better than the rest of us.
I'm a hardcore reductionist scientist, in particular a molecular
geneticist investigating how evolution alters (and is altered by)
particular biological processes.
I have also had spiritual experiences, but do not believe in God (at
least, not as described by any major religion).
These are not irreconcilable attitudes.
Peter
Too right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 12:24:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:10:21 +0000, Peter Ellis <pjie2@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And it's still meaningless gobbledygook used by believers to pretend
they've got something that makes them better than the rest of us.
I'm a hardcore reductionist scientist, in particular a molecular
geneticist investigating how evolution alters (and is altered by)
particular biological processes.
I have also had spiritual experiences, but do not believe in God (at
least, not as described by any major religion).
These are not irreconcilable attitudes.
The problem is that believers use it as a kind of shorthand and
imagine that without their superstition nobody else can be.
It's one of those words whose mental picture includes "God" for them
so whatever it is we can't have it.
But I have yet to hear any of them explain what it means.
Apart from not believing in their god, I can't see any difference from
them - although I don't go around lecturing them on what they believe,
why their kids are unfit to be scouts, etc.
I go all soft over puppies and kittens just as much as they do. I get
the same sense of wonder looking down into Yosemite Valley from
Inspiration Point, the same sense of emotion when I listen to Puccini,
etc.
Peter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Francis Turton" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 07:12:22 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
What's a "spiritual dimension" apart from meaningless gobbledygook?
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You know perfectly well it's a reactionthat wouldn't even
happen if they kept it to themselves.
I was responding to the specific claim that religion offers nothing
that an enlightened atheistic moral code wouldn't. I was saying that
religion is often painted as a univseral ill that leads to immoderate
behaviour, whereas its more enlightened practitioners (who sadly, in
most religions, number rather few) see it as offering a purpose to
existence that goes *beyond* the simple question of morality, but
encompasses the need for the individual to feel part of something
bigger.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 07:30:01 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2006 05:12:22 -0800, "Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Religion gives a spiritual dimension to life. No simple list of morally
unobjectionable rules for behaviour (supposing such a list could be
agreed upon) can do that.
What's a "spiritual dimension" apart from meaningless gobbledygook?
In other words, critics of religion usually focus on its practical
aspects, and hardly ever on its spiritual ones. I think this is because
such critics are, by and large, not spiritual people, and in many cases
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You're the one using meaningless gobbledygook in to slander people,
not I.
You know perfectly well it's a reactionthat wouldn't even
happen if they kept it to themselves.
I was responding to the specific claim that religion offers nothing
that an enlightened atheistic moral code wouldn't. I was saying that
religion is often painted as a univseral ill that leads to immoderate
behaviour, whereas its more enlightened practitioners (who sadly, in
most religions, number rather few) see it as offering a purpose to
existence that goes *beyond* the simple question of morality, but
encompasses the need for the individual to feel part of something
bigger.
It doesn't. It pretends to, and its gullible followers believe it then
imagine it is absolute.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
A slanderous falsehood on yor part.
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
There's no case to rest, moron.
Until you explain what "spiritual experience" is meant to be then you
have nothing to say on the subject, espectially when you accuse others
of not having it.
And in spite of your dishonesty it remains meaningless gobbledygook.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis Turton" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 09:37:28 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You're the one using meaningless gobbledygook in to slander people,
not I.
Who on earth have I slandered?
I see you didn't respond to my question, anyway.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
A slanderous falsehood on yor part.
I was referring to anti-religous zealots, and since you seemed to take
that so personally, I can only assume that you consider yourself one
such.
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
There's no case to rest, moron.
Until you explain what "spiritual experience" is meant to be then you
have nothing to say on the subject, espectially when you accuse others
of not having it.
Although your abusive tone doesn't merit a reasoned reply, I'm going to
give one. (I suspect it will be my last, though.)
"Spiritual experience" is the subjective feeling that one is part of
part of a greater scheme, or a greater consciousness. It may be
deluded, or it may reflect the real nature of things, but either way, I
know such an *experience* exists, because I've had it. And no, I am not
religious.
And in spite of your dishonesty it remains meaningless gobbledygook.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 09:43:39 AM |
|
|
"Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com> wrote in message
news:1137771448.864732.280280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You're the one using meaningless gobbledygook in to slander people,
not I.
Who on earth have I slandered?
I see you didn't respond to my question, anyway.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
A slanderous falsehood on yor part.
I was referring to anti-religous zealots, and since you seemed to take
that so personally, I can only assume that you consider yourself one
such.
: )
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not
the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
There's no case to rest, moron.
Until you explain what "spiritual experience" is meant to be then you
have nothing to say on the subject, espectially when you accuse others
of not having it.
Although your abusive tone doesn't merit a reasoned reply, I'm going to
give one. (I suspect it will be my last, though.)
Some of them are getting a bit troll like.
"Spiritual experience" is the subjective feeling that one is part of
part of a greater scheme, or a greater consciousness. It may be
deluded, or it may reflect the real nature of things, but either way, I
know such an *experience* exists, because I've had it. And no, I am not
religious.
And in spite of your dishonesty it remains meaningless gobbledygook.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 02:16:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:43:39 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqr0dj$qmp$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
"Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com> wrote in message
news:1137771448.864732.280280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You're the one using meaningless gobbledygook in to slander people,
not I.
Who on earth have I slandered?
I see you didn't respond to my question, anyway.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
A slanderous falsehood on yor part.
I was referring to anti-religous zealots, and since you seemed to take
that so personally, I can only assume that you consider yourself one
such.
: )
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not
the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
There's no case to rest, moron.
Until you explain what "spiritual experience" is meant to be then you
have nothing to say on the subject, espectially when you accuse others
of not having it.
Although your abusive tone doesn't merit a reasoned reply, I'm going to
give one. (I suspect it will be my last, though.)
Some of them are getting a bit troll like.
Did you have any particular one in mind?
You can certainly discount me from that characterisation.
"Spiritual experience" is the subjective feeling that one is part of
part of a greater scheme, or a greater consciousness. It may be
deluded, or it may reflect the real nature of things, but either way, I
know such an *experience* exists, because I've had it. And no, I am not
religious.
And in spite of your dishonesty it remains meaningless gobbledygook.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 02:55:19 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:8dr3t1tqiagoil60eae1ftaikvjunqdj2v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:43:39 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqr0dj$qmp$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
"Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com> wrote in message
news:1137771448.864732.280280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You're the one using meaningless gobbledygook in to slander people,
not I.
Who on earth have I slandered?
I see you didn't respond to my question, anyway.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
A slanderous falsehood on yor part.
I was referring to anti-religous zealots, and since you seemed to take
that so personally, I can only assume that you consider yourself one
such.
: )
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not
the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
There's no case to rest, moron.
Until you explain what "spiritual experience" is meant to be then you
have nothing to say on the subject, espectially when you accuse others
of not having it.
Although your abusive tone doesn't merit a reasoned reply, I'm going to
give one. (I suspect it will be my last, though.)
Some of them are getting a bit troll like.
Did you have any particular one in mind?
You can certainly discount me from that characterisation.
After your last post above claiming you do not understand the phrase
'atheist fundamentalist' I'm not so sure. I would say it is somewhat troll
like to just keep asking for more and more explanation of simple things that
almost anyone could understand. Its a bit like the childs game, why? but
why? yeah, but why that? etc etc. This is not in the spirit of adult debate,
nor is being abusive. Adults have such debates to think through issues and
perhaps persuade people of some of their own viewpoint. The purpose is not
to annoy or waste other peoples time and end-of-finger skin. Trolls, who may
be technically adults, have a completely different agenda which I'm not sure
I understand, however I know it when I see it, and then kill file it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gropius Riftwynde" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 05:17:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:55:19 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
After your last post above claiming you do not understand the phrase
'atheist fundamentalist' I'm not so sure. I would say it is somewhat troll
I woud humbly suggest that an aethiest fundamentalst is someone who
either has no better way of spending their time, or who is being paid
to express their opinons.
GR
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 05:40:06 AM |
|
|
dictionary persuer On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:55:19 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqsss0$nig$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:8dr3t1tqiagoil60eae1ftaikvjunqdj2v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:43:39 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqr0dj$qmp$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
"Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com> wrote in message
news:1137771448.864732.280280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You're the one using meaningless gobbledygook in to slander people,
not I.
Who on earth have I slandered?
I see you didn't respond to my question, anyway.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
A slanderous falsehood on yor part.
I was referring to anti-religous zealots, and since you seemed to take
that so personally, I can only assume that you consider yourself one
such.
: )
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is not
the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
There's no case to rest, moron.
Until you explain what "spiritual experience" is meant to be then you
have nothing to say on the subject, espectially when you accuse others
of not having it.
Although your abusive tone doesn't merit a reasoned reply, I'm going to
give one. (I suspect it will be my last, though.)
Some of them are getting a bit troll like.
Did you have any particular one in mind?
You can certainly discount me from that characterisation.
After your last post above claiming you do not understand the phrase
'atheist fundamentalist' I'm not so sure. I would say it is somewhat troll
like to just keep asking for more and more explanation of simple things that
almost anyone could understand. Its a bit like the childs game, why? but
why? yeah, but why that? etc etc. This is not in the spirit of adult debate,
nor is being abusive. Adults have such debates to think through issues and
perhaps persuade people of some of their own viewpoint. The purpose is not
to annoy or waste other peoples time and end-of-finger skin. Trolls, who may
be technically adults, have a completely different agenda which I'm not sure
I understand, however I know it when I see it, and then kill file it.
It is a polite rhetorical technique.
A subsitute for the more abrasive, and much more tedious to type:
"I have investigated claims exactly like yours, at length, in a truly
scholarly manner over the years, and found them to be either grossly
ill-informed (at best), or utterly fraudulent.
I wish to learn wether you are merely regurgitating the same tired
debunked nonsense, or whether you have something to say from which I
may learn new knowledge, and as such, I present this polite
challenge."
If I genuinely thought that I had nothing to learn from your posts,
then I would not respond, save to preventing an egregious falsehood to
pass by without comment, lest it should be given the implicit
imprimateur of passing through my ***** filter unchallenged.
I sum that up, by the simple expedient of asking, even if obliquely,
"you are the one making the truly extraordinary claim, put up the
evidence for it, back down, or shut up."
After years of wading through the same tediously repetitious lies,
nonsense and plain insanity, presented ad nauseum, I have had to
distill my responses to their essence.
If you have the luxury of the time to address each post in detail,
then good luck to you.
I don't.
If you kill-file me for that reason, then you are shallow enough that
it is of no consequence in any case.
I do not get the feeling that you are like that, though.
And to address the issue at hand, I most certainly do understand what
is meant by the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist'.
And the meaning is misleading as to reality, viciously malicious,
quite wrong, and libellous.
I feign ignorance as a tool to enabl epolite discourse on the matter,
in the hope that I may be able to correct the false impression in a
productive way.
I can easil change this approach to a more robust one, should you so
wish it.
No, I am most definitely not a troll.
I am a passionate pursuer of the truth, and reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
21 Jan 2006 06:27:36 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:u974t1lp700qcr0omtbjop5n3vfh5elqo4@4ax.com...
dictionary persuer On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:55:19 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqsss0$nig$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:8dr3t1tqiagoil60eae1ftaikvjunqdj2v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:43:39 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqr0dj$qmp$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
"Francis Turton" <fturton@3glab.com> wrote in message
news:1137771448.864732.280280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why lie?
I can't respond to this unless you make clear what you think I'm
lying
about. I genuinely don't understand your point.
You're the one using meaningless gobbledygook in to slander people,
not I.
Who on earth have I slandered?
I see you didn't respond to my question, anyway.
Lots of people *do* keep their religion to themselves. But the
anti-religious zealots won't even allow them this; they say because
*some* religious people are dangerous bigots, *all* religious people
should be regarded as a danger.
A slanderous falsehood on yor part.
I was referring to anti-religous zealots, and since you seemed to take
that so personally, I can only assume that you consider yourself one
such.
: )
don't truly understand what spiritual experience *is*. Which is
not
the
More meaningless gobbledygook.
I rest my case.
There's no case to rest, moron.
Until you explain what "spiritual experience" is meant to be then you
have nothing to say on the subject, espectially when you accuse
others
of not having it.
Although your abusive tone doesn't merit a reasoned reply, I'm going
to
give one. (I suspect it will be my last, though.)
Some of them are getting a bit troll like.
Did you have any particular one in mind?
You can certainly discount me from that characterisation.
After your last post above claiming you do not understand the phrase
'atheist fundamentalist' I'm not so sure. I would say it is somewhat troll
like to just keep asking for more and more explanation of simple things
that
almost anyone could understand. Its a bit like the childs game, why? but
why? yeah, but why that? etc etc. This is not in the spirit of adult
debate,
nor is being abusive. Adults have such debates to think through issues and
perhaps persuade people of some of their own viewpoint. The purpose is not
to annoy or waste other peoples time and end-of-finger skin. Trolls, who
may
be technically adults, have a completely different agenda which I'm not
sure
I understand, however I know it when I see it, and then kill file it.
It is a polite rhetorical technique.
A subsitute for the more abrasive, and much more tedious to type:
"I have investigated claims exactly like yours, at length, in a truly
scholarly manner over the years, and found them to be either grossly
ill-informed (at best), or utterly fraudulent.
I wish to learn wether you are merely regurgitating the same tired
debunked nonsense, or whether you have something to say from which I
may learn new knowledge, and as such, I present this polite
challenge."
If I genuinely thought that I had nothing to learn from your posts,
then I would not respond, save to preventing an egregious falsehood to
pass by without comment, lest it should be given the implicit
imprimateur of passing through my ***** filter unchallenged.
I sum that up, by the simple expedient of asking, even if obliquely,
"you are the one making the truly extraordinary claim, put up the
evidence for it, back down, or shut up."
After years of wading through the same tediously repetitious lies,
nonsense and plain insanity, presented ad nauseum, I have had to
distill my responses to their essence.
If you have the luxury of the time to address each post in detail,
then good luck to you.
I don't.
If you kill-file me for that reason, then you are shallow enough that
it is of no consequence in any case.
I do not get the feeling that you are like that, though.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was considering kill filing you.
And to address the issue at hand, I most certainly do understand what
is meant by the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist'.
And the meaning is misleading as to reality, viciously malicious,
quite wrong, and libellous.
I feign ignorance as a tool to enabl epolite discourse on the matter,
in the hope that I may be able to correct the false impression in a
productive way.
I can easil change this approach to a more robust one, should you so
wish it.
No, I am most definitely not a troll.
I am a passionate pursuer of the truth, and reality.
I think someone above has put forward a good explanation of it but I will
now try a bit having seen your post.
An atheist is someone who beleives that there is no God or similar universal
intelligence, I can only presume you must know what an atheist is??? A
fundamentalist is someone who has a particular set of beliefs which they
take as fundamental and foundational and are generally very resistant to
considering that some of them may be false or even open to question. Again I
cannot beleive that you do not understand this term??
If you put them together an 'atheist fundamentalist' just signifies that the
two features above are combined in the same individual! So lastly I cannot
believe that you are unaware of how the grammar of phrase formation
operates.
In conclusion how can there be any genuine doubt in your mind about what is
meant by 'atheist fundamentalist'?
I hope from this explanation you can see why some people may get annoyed at
someone pretending not to understand. I suspect what you are trying to do is
to imply that 'fundamentalist' cannot apply to atheists because they are not
religious. So why not just come out and say that! Maybe because you know
your going to have a hard job defending such a case?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
23 Jan 2006 04:20:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:27:36 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqt9a0$hop$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
:
I think someone above has put forward a good explanation of it but I will
now try a bit having seen your post.
An atheist is someone who beleives that there is no God or similar universal
intelligence, I can only presume you must know what an atheist is??? A
Hold on there!
Your definition is both wrong, and utterly misleading.
An atheists is some-one who is lacking theism.
I know what an atheist is.
I can only presume that despite repeated attempts at education, you
plainly do not.
fundamentalist is someone who has a particular set of beliefs which they
take as fundamental and foundational and are generally very resistant to
considering that some of them may be false or even open to question. Again I
cannot beleive that you do not understand this term??
I understand the term "fundamentalist".
If you put them together an 'atheist fundamentalist' just signifies that the
two features above are combined in the same individual! So lastly I cannot
believe that you are unaware of how the grammar of phrase formation
operates.
Except that one of the terms is based on a specious definition, and
therefore the compund term is rendered specious.
I cannot understand how you can fail to grasp that basic, simple,
fact.
In conclusion how can there be any genuine doubt in your mind about what is
meant by 'atheist fundamentalist'?
I understand what you mean by it.
And you are either egregiously mistaken, or deliberately fabricating a
noxious phrase designed to win cheap points for a delusional cause.
I hope from this explanation you can see why some people may get annoyed at
someone pretending not to understand. I suspect what you are trying to do is
to imply that 'fundamentalist' cannot apply to atheists because they are not
religious. So why not just come out and say that! Maybe because you know
your going to have a hard job defending such a case?
I do not come out and say that, because it is not the case, any more
than a non-Xulaehorn player can be an "Axulaehorn fundamentalist".
It is a total perversion of grammer, common sense, and has no meaning.
If you care to explain to me why there is such a thing as a
"Axulaehorn fundamentalist", then you will have answered this
frustrating exchange to both of our mutual satisfaction.
I bet you can't.
And don't pretend to not understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
23 Jan 2006 10:14:38 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:r5b9t1lgppef1lafdicguk2fftfjgov7mh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:27:36 -0000, "JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote:
- Refer: <dqt9a0$hop$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
:
I think someone above has put forward a good explanation of it but I will
now try a bit having seen your post.
An atheist is someone who beleives that there is no God or similar
universal
intelligence, I can only presume you must know what an atheist is??? A
Hold on there!
Your definition
This is the language's definition:
atheist
One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
is both wrong, and utterly misleading.
An atheists is some-one who is lacking theism.
Sorry, I think I would prefer to take practically everyone elses opinion in
the world rather than just yours. But hey you just go ahead redefining any
words when it suits you. Reality just isn't convienient sometimes is it.
I know what an atheist is.
I can only presume that despite repeated attempts at education, you
plainly do not.
Now I know that you are forming your own language, loosely based on English,
I will try better to understand. See I was fooled by the similarities with
my own tongue. Please go on great teacher I really would love to learn a
language just spoken by a few apparent nutters in a particular newsgroup,
not!
fundamentalist is someone who has a particular set of beliefs which they
take as fundamental and foundational and are generally very resistant to
considering that some of them may be false or even open to question. Again
I
cannot beleive that you do not understand this term??
I understand the term "fundamentalist".
This is a shared term, at least for now. Who knows it could change at any
moment, languages are like that especially in small groups/tribes.
If you put them together an 'atheist fundamentalist' just signifies that
the
two features above are combined in the same individual! So lastly I cannot
believe that you are unaware of how the grammar of phrase formation
operates.
Except that one of the terms is based on a specious definition, and
therefore the compund term is rendered specious.
I cannot understand how you can fail to grasp that basic, simple,
fact.
No, I do now, thank you. The term 'atheist' was specious because we were
using slightly different languages. I can see where it was all going wrong.
All along we should have really adopted your term 'anti-theist
fundamentalist'. Whichever, the main point is you are a raging
fundamentalist whatever crazy name you wish to call yourself. I think what
was amazing to many of us was how you an 'anti-theist', or as my lingual
community would descibe you atheist, are as rabid as the people you are
constantly accussing of unreasonableness. Thats all.
In conclusion how can there be any genuine doubt in your mind about what
is
meant by 'atheist fundamentalist'?
I understand what you mean by it.
Oh, so you do understand my language! So it was only me who was not
bilingual. No wonder you thought me ignorant. No wonder many of us must
appear moronic to such talented linguistics such as yourselves.
And you are either egregiously mistaken, or deliberately fabricating a
noxious phrase designed to win cheap points for a delusional cause.
Sorry I may be hitting another limit in my abilities in your language but
are you disputing the other part of the phrase at this point? Up to now you
have, very kindly explained what you mean with the symbol 'atheist'. I
thought from what you said above 'I understand the term "fundamentalist"'
that we had a common word here. I am quite happy to call you anything you
want for instance a 'non-Xulaehorn fundamentalist'. Translated this would
mean an 'atheist fundamentalist' in English. Would that help? Actually you
appear to be incapable of defining your own beliefs, or accessing them, and
perhaps you have confusions about language as well.
I hope from this explanation you can see why some people may get annoyed
at
someone pretending not to understand. I suspect what you are trying to do
is
to imply that 'fundamentalist' cannot apply to atheists because they are
not
religious. So why not just come out and say that! Maybe because you know
your going to have a hard job defending such a case?
I do not come out and say that, because it is not the case,
So it is not the case that; 'fundamentalist' cannot apply to atheists
(anti-theists in your special language) because they are not religious. So
it is the case that fuundamentalist can apply to atheists/anti-theists
because they are not religious. OK good we don't agree, this is getting
rather complicated. Anyway I'm starting to be suspect you are ill (and nasty
with it) and not worthy of much more of my time, if any. I will read any
reply you make to this post, so pile in as much of that bile that is eating
your insides up, and then that will be it.
snipped nonsense from probably fevered mind.
begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R
|
Related Articles |
|
|
