On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:24:44 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> in <fcOdnSttn8JTPRTZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@io.com> wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:3kmi82t46lfftgihkdave6vskhjeoqu6r7@4ax.com...

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 02:12:22 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> in <j4OdnY9tPM_FghTZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@io.com> wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:pn3i82l950fjfjd6vc2cu7c29mtfnc5jsv@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:26:09 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> in <lu2dnXFHAKXQdxXZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@io.com> wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:hrmh82l4i1r57i4i537n1rridvujo5gjfa@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:03:59 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> in <rLGdnb-d9YNWAxXZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@io.com>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:if5h82doshv1ar0uua4o651cu7bvcoa8qt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:08:39 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33
Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns97DC85B47DAA2taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:

"Mary Walker" <mary@walker.com> wrote in
news:448881c9$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:

After the disaster of the failed biblical prophesy of 6/6/6
then
it
seems pointless to have a alt.religion.christian group any more.
I
expect all the christians in the world feel rather tricked that
JC
didn't come riding down from the clouds on a golden horse and
take
them up to paradise. But at least the argument as to whether
christianity is a complete crock of ***** has been cleared up
once
and
for all.

What a clever and original thought. I'm certain nobody was smart
enough
to
think of it the other 19 times the date has bee 6/6/6. You're *so*
clever.

Since 666 is not a date why would anyone have thought of it at any
time?

Because they're Christians. Why else?

Ah, of course, the argument that all Christians are blither idiots.
You are, of course, smarter than all of them. Smarter than Dr. King.
Smarter than Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Smarter than Thaddeus
Dobzhansky.

I'm smarter than the stupid Christian ***** that induced early labor
to
avoid any chance of having her baby on that non-date you're talking
about.

So you add misogyny to your repertoire. Impressive to some I am sure.

And you maintain your hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy.

The sentence directly below, you idiot.

All your careful analysis below, and you fail to realize that one
example
does not a misogynist make.

You complain about my generalizations, and then make a generalization.

You attack women for being women.

WTF? Where! Oh, yeah, that's right, if I insult one woman for being
irrational, then I must be insulting ALL women for being irrational.

No, by using "*****" as an attack.

[snip]

Other than that, though, I fail to see the relevance.

The relevance was that a Christian thought 666 was a date.

*A* Christian. And what do we call people who assert that all members
of a group share the quality of one of them? Big something or other, I
think.

Well, don't you all ascribe to the same big rule book?

Who does the "you" refer to?

Don't you all call
yourselves Christians?

Where have you seen me call myself a Christian?

What good is a label if you can't draw a
generalization from it? That's what labels are for.

Let me see if I get this straight. I am not going to bother to look
this up, but aren't you one of the people who get all huffy if someone
says something about atheists?

Someone who complains that the only
factor in common is a disbelief in God? If I am wrong, fine. But if
you are one of those people you might want to consider that
inconsistency.

Either way, drawing unwarranted generalizations is called prejudice.

If you are going to assert a quality to a group you have the burden of
demonstrating it with evidence.

You had claimed
above that people would think a particular idea because they were
Christians

And that one did.

That *one*. So?

So a Christian insists that having a baby on the date 06/06/06 runs the
risk
of birthing the antichrist. Not being a Christian, I'm in no position to
contradict that that is what Christians believe. I have to assume all
Christians agree.

No, you don't have to assume that.

You do have the ability to read and
learn.

You choose bigotry and ignorance over knowledge.

Generalizing
from one person to millions of people is rather astounding.

(even though the idea contradict the Christian Bible).

It's not my job to police your interpretations.

It seems to be your job to tell people what they think, you do it
frequently.

No. I do make generalizations based on what Christians tell me they
believe.

You make generalizations of what all Christians believe based on what
one out-lier (and you know she is an out-lier since it got press
coverage) said.

Not being a Christian myself, I'm in no position to contradict what they
say
Christians believe.

Really? I can discuss Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, etc.
without being a member of all of those groups. I know that concept
have confused you, but it really is possible.

Of course, then another Christian comes along, like you,

Care to provide evidence for your claims?

and says no, that's
not what Christians believe. They believe this other thing.

Or, OMG, there is a variety of views on subjects. I would kind of
hope you could understand the difference between doctrine and personal
views. You do, however, seem to have a problem with understanding the
views of other people.

Then, of course, another Christian comes along and says no, what that Matt
fellow said was wrong. Christians don't believe that, they believe this
other other thing.

And so there is a variety of opinion. As among just about any group.
There are key views and less important views.

What's an objective observer to do?

Study what is interesting, get as much evidence as possible, and make
their best tentative decision.

Or they could take your path, get one
data point and generalize to the entire set.

The Bible say that the number is a man, that someone then
says it is a date is not particularly impressive.

Whine to them. I'm only reacting to what Christians apparently believe.

No, you are not and you know you are not.

Now
You implied that all Christians are stupid.

Or that all Christians are irrational. That's a fact.

I offer Thaddeus Dobzhansky again as an example for you to discuss.

Can't come up with an argument, eh?

A counter example is an argument. It is that evidence thing.

Now you change that to one
Christian being stupid and you have not shown a connection between the
religion and intelligence.

Faith is the direct connection between religion and irrationality.

Thaddeus Dobzhansky.

Blurting out random names is hardly an argument.

ROTFLMAO. It is not a random name, it is a name pick for very specific
reasons. If you don't know who he was then say so.