On Dec 22, 7:21 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

[...]

To  Christopher  :
      A  one  word  insult  is  the  first   indicator  .

Then perhaps you shouldn't have been one.

It was all your stupid and dishonest non-sequitur you put inhis mouth
deserved.

To  Christopher  :
     A  one  sentence  follow  up  insult  is  the   second  .
After  that  ,  an  idiot  becomes  a  fool  because   a  fool
always  repeats  his  mistakes  .

That's all you stupidity and dishonesty deserved.

You knew he didn't say that yet you put the words in his mouth.

So stop pretending.

Do you have a problem with reality? Asking someone "Do you mean X?"
is not the same as claiming "You mean X". How will anyone know what
someone means if they are not allowed to ask?

On Dec 22, 7:54 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:27:27 -0800 (PST), Jayne Cobb





<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 22, 7:01 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

[...]

To  Darrell  Stec  and  whoever  else  is  reading  :
     So  ,  as  I  understand  your  point  .   If  you
haven't  seen  any  angels  there  is  no  God  ?
Is  that  about  right  ?

Idiot.

To  Christopher  :
      A  one  word  insult  is  the  first   indicator  .

Then perhaps you shouldn't have been one.

It was all your stupid and dishonest non-sequitur you put inhis mouth
deserved.

Asking for clarification isn't a lie, a strawman argument or putting
words in someone's mouth.  In fact it is the best way to avoid such
miscommunication.  When unsure of what someone means it is much better
to ask than presume.

Then you are as remarkably stupid as he is, and just as dishonest.

You have a serious problem. How can he know what ~everyone~ reading
this group believes without asking them?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:35:14 -0800 (PST), Jayne Cobb
<hsototr@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 23, 10:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:


[...]

You claimed Christians are atheist.

[...]

And they are by their own admission.
they are atheist with respect to Thor.
I thought that I have already detailed this?

Your answer implies that you are using a special definition.
Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Most people consider atheist to mean belief in zero gods and theist to
be a belief in some kind of a god or gods. Under the normal
definition atheist and theist are mutually exclusive. The fact that a
Christian does not believe in Thor does not counter the fact that
Christians do claim Jesus to be God. If you have some unusual
philosophy why don't you sum it up instead of just hinting at it?

I am not feigning.
Christians claim to be atheist with respect to Thor, for instance.

I understand "where you are coming from".
I class myself as a "rabid atheist", for what that is worth, but by
the modal Christian definition of "atheist", Christians are,
themselves, atheist.

I see this as rather trivial, but true nonetheless.
I simply have one less god than they.

How you deal with this truth is up to you.

[...]

No, i am not a Christian, at least not by any of the fundie's
definitions.
But I behave in a far more Christian manner than most of the
self-professed Christians who are known to me?

Now that I believe. There are a lot of annoying hypocrites out there
claiming to be Christian so I find this statement to be very
reasonable.

Does that make me a Christian?
You tell me.

At the basic level professing Jesus to be God is a requirement. Other
requirements (if any) depend upon the denomination. So nice guy -
perhaps but Christian - no.

Agreed.

I neither know, nor care.

Fair enough.

I have yet to be presented with any evidence for the existence of any
supernatural gods.

And with that we have come full circle and we are back to
Ledraychere's other question.

" . . .  whoever  else  is  reading  :
So  ,  as  I  understand  your  point  .   If  you haven't  seen  any
angels [read: evidence for the existence of supernatural]  there  is
no  God  ? Is  that  about  right  ?"

That is incoherent to me.
If you can explain it to me cohrently, I will have a bash at answering
honestly, OK?

In my opinion you already did answer it. I was trying to point out
that your "I have yet to be presented . . . " comment implies that you
are the type of skeptic that won't believe in the supernatural without
evidence.

I take that mantle upon my shoulders with pride.
Yes, I *am* that type of realistic adult. (Or 'skeptic' if one must
employ that reasonable synonym for "well adjusted and educated adult")

I have no idea why Ledraychere was asking but as for me I
find it easer to understand someone if I know where they are coming
from.

I do believe that we are approaching a common wavelength, at last.

And I thank you for your unusual patience.

On Dec 23, 9:44 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

[...]

Of course hostile trolls don't cooperate so the only thing that can be
done is to either discredit or ignore them.

Oh, the irony.

Not in the way you are implying. When I first noticed you it was for
your proselytizing = Ku Klux Klan, swastikas drawing, gay bashing,
Skinhead, psychopath, cross burning, hate crime rant over in the
"Creationist Murder" thread.

You got ***** if I asked you questions but you accused me of
being stupid if I took you literally. Then you disappeared and did
the same thing to someone else a few days later.

[...]

.  By  the  way  ,
there
seem  to  be  several  here  ,  is  this  their  home or  something  ?

In my experience most news groups have a few but we are posting to alt
atheism so I'd say yes.

Where you assholes are the trolls.

Nope, sorry. It doesn't work that way. I welcome healthy
communication. It's just that nine out of ten netizens are not
interested in that.


JC