Atheism vs Christianity Google Group

Re: Questions for Religious Right Members of This Forum

espace1...@gmail.com (e_space) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:04:17 UT

as i have previously suggested, why dont you ask your brother
slobbers. in one of his failed attempts to start a thread, he stated
that he was as spiritual as anyone. take a chance LL, and ask your
idol. dont worry, he only gobs on xtians and those that dont revere
him. ;^-)

Re: Things god allowed and disallowed.

bholl...@gmail.com (bholly72) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:04:00 UT

I'm certainly not finding the Xtians make my life difficult. The issue
is more important than that. Consider the presidency. Is it really
wise to give control of our nuclear arsenal to someone who believes
that a catastophic final battle will bring Jesus back? And should we
allow a woman's right to choose to be limited by people who are

Re: Bill Maher's "atheism" is not complete

ipu.belie...@gmail.com (Answer_42) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:03:51 UT

Define "denial."
Of course.
Then you are not saying much.
lacking belief in "A" != no beliefs
If we claim that X lacks belief in A, it certianly implies that X
could hold the belief in A, or could have other beliefs, thus the
capacity for beliefs is implied in the original statement.
If we claim that X has no beliefs, then this is a different statement

Re: Questions for Religious Right Members of This Forum

espace1...@gmail.com (e_space) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:01:59 UT

i dont believe anything i hear oh misguided one. i believe what i
experience. one would have thought you would have grasped that by now,
but alas, no such luck ...

Re: What does a non-literal interpretation of genesis actually mean?

espace1...@gmail.com (e_space) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:58:12 UT

yep, and after that, maybe you can get on with something important?

Re: What does a non-literal interpretation of genesis actually mean?

espace1...@gmail.com (e_space) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:57:33 UT

no ... its obviously a failed attempt to explain to you that the bible
is not the word of 'god' so that MAYBE you can move on and quit
spinning your wheels in the same old religion-bashing mud that you
seem to be completely ensconced within ...

Re: Bill Maher's "atheism" is not complete

bholl...@gmail.com (bholly72) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:55:28 UT

What argument from authority? If we are discussing what the accepted
definition of a term is, then taking a look at how people in the field
of study use that term is not an argument from authority. Try again.

Re: Bill Maher's "atheism" is not complete

bholl...@gmail.com (bholly72) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:53:32 UT

No, denial does require negating the proposition denied. Now you are
not only tampering with the long accepted meaning of the term
"atheism," you are trying to redefine what "deny" means.

Re: Things god allowed and disallowed.

espace1...@gmail.com (e_space) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:53:12 UT

yawn ... does this stuff EVER end? from what i can see, most of the
atheists here get simple pleasure from picking on old worn out words.
dont you guys have anything better to do? are xtians really making
your life THAT tough that you cant resist repeating the same old
arguments over and over and over and over ad infinitum ... really, id

Re: Bill Maher's "atheism" is not complete

ipu.belie...@gmail.com (Answer_42) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:47:07 UT

If you wait for a coherent reply from an apologist, it may take a
while.
So, from what I gathered...
Incarnation: A fictional being who is allegedly all-powerful takes on
the appearance of a mortal man in order to walk among them, but
manages to be two at the same time... well, he is all-powerful...

Re: Bill Maher's "atheism" is not complete

bholl...@gmail.com (bholly72) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:39:06 UT

You are simply mistaken about what the currently accepted definition
is. I recommend to you the excellent discussion of this issue in the
Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the "Atheism" entry, which was written
by Paul Edwards. "According to the most usual definition, an 'atheist'
is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the

Re: [AvC] Re: Christianity for Dummies

dbrisc...@gmail.com (Doris Briscoe) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:26:37 UT

Funny, Now we know you are a monkey in the Jungle with alot of information.
ha(chuckle)

Re: Bill Maher's "atheism" is not complete

drafter...@gmail.com (Drafterman) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:26:17 UT

Did they ever teach you what an argument from authority was during
those 45 years and why it's a fallacy?

Re: Bill Maher's "atheism" is not complete

drafter...@gmail.com (Drafterman) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:25:29 UT

It isn't "my" definition. I didn't invent it. It is what the
definition happens to be.
Furthermore, denial does not require one to contradict what is being
denied, it is sufficient to simply refuse to accept. So there is
nothing inconsistent with the definition I provided (which isn't mine)
and what you claim is the "established philosophical definition".

Re: Insane Christian child raising advice

ipu.belie...@gmail.com (Answer_42) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:24:06 UT

Yet, at the very end of the article you cite, we can read:
"
If you have misgivings about the proper application of the rod, read
again Mike’s little booklet In Defense of Biblical Chastisement.
"
And if we mosey along to that article, we can read:
"
The most painful nerves are just under the surface of the skin. A