17d4444a
XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian
XPost: aus.religion.christian
From: me@nothere.com
On 24-January-2012 5:48 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
> On Jan 23, 9:48 pm, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 24-January-2012 3:45 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 8:31 pm, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 24-January-2012 1:19 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 23, 2:30 pm, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>> On 24-January-2012 7:12 AM, John Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:57:41 +1100, felix_unger
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23-January-2012 4:23 AM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 22, 1:46 am, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22-January-2012 7:46 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 5:48 pm, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22-January-2012 12:28 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 3:46 pm, felix_unger
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22-January-2012 5:44 AM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beautiful clarity! That's the best metaphor I've ever seen
regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of atheism. I'm going to be quoting you from
time-to-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time on that one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Daniel, you have fan!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it getting hot in here?
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't give up your day job..!
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exist, yet you think I have a day job?
>>>>>>>>>> oh.. my humble apologies. who's doing the typing btw?
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>> Believing in me (a logical fallacy) could put you at risk of
offending
>>>>>>>>> your monotheistic god. Are you really sure you want to go down this
>>>>>>>>> path?
>>>>>>>> If you're not interested in rational discussion, I shall bid you
gooday.
>>>>>>> On the contrary, we're *very* interested in rational discussion. You
>>>>>>> really must come and visit us again when you're capable of it.
>>>>>> with an invitation like that, I shall disrespectfully decline
>>>>> In other words, you're incapable of rational discussion and have
>>>>> chosen to run away.
>>>> No you stupid clueless twat! I'm ignoring (from now) on anyone who wants
>>>> to be insulting and confrontational- and that includes you!
>>> You're obviously frustrated because simple logic keeps prevailing
>>> against you pushing your corrupt moral views and passing judgment on
>>> others.
>> only in your scrambled brain
> You just passed judgment again,
I like to use colourful language. would you rather I had said.. "I
totally disagree with YOUR judgement". It's quite amusing how you
continually criticise me for what you do yourself.
> and with an ad hominem --
that is what I've been getting from atheists, including you, ever since
I've been posting here (in alt.agnosticism). you even criticise me for
responding to it, but never the perpetrator, which makes me wonder why
i'm even bothering to talk to you now
> this is why
> your claim of having a desire for rational discourse seems
> contradictory.
why don't you try it sometime and see for yourself
>
>>> Are you really so naive that you think you will be able to
>>> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
>>> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>>> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
>>> got perspective by doing so.
>> Oh yes, I certainly did! I gained further insight into the kind of
>> people atheists are
> Whatever that insight leads you to conclude, do keep in mind that
> attempts to apply one set of characteristics to an identifiable group
> (e.g., people who share a particular philosophy) tend to be
> unreliable, especially in the absence of significant and properly-
> conducted peer-reviewed studies.
>
> For example, despite the somewhat regular news reports in recent
> decades that priests have been molesting children,
and the RCC has been covering it up for centuries
> there are
> undoubtedly also many honourable priests who would never engage in
> such nefarious activity.
yes the majority
> Unfortunately, the result is that all
> priests become suspects in the eyes of an unforgiving public who
> unwittingly rely on faulty journalistic "paint them all with the same
> brush" types of conclusions.
>
>>> If you don't like that perspective,
>>> that's life, but blaming atheists and stamp collectors for your
>>> failure to convince skeptics that fallacy is fact won't prove to be
>>> helpful.
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to
> persevere to the end in their nature and education."
> -- Plato of Athens
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction"
"Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to
fire at"
"I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have
to"
"Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they
are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their
ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE
idea, and that is a
mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub
branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat,
let alone a great and enduring civilisation"
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can
disprove Evolution"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
