 | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) John--if I told you that the Risen Christ appeared to me, and that He proclaimed to me that Christians have been doing everything wrong for ~2000 years, would you believe me, or would you suspect that I am either in error or am being (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) I appreciate you trying to create an analogy that you think I might find relevant:-) But if you claimed this, how exactly could I expect to get "independent confirmation" of your claim? Personally, I'd use 2 criteria in consideration of your (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Provide me with facts that disprove the "given" part -- prove to me that Bush is right and honest. I'm not seeing it on my own. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Last time I checked one was *presumed* innocent until proven guilty in this country. JOHN (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) You could just ask me two different times... 8^) Anyway, you've given a nice summary of the problem of Revelation as evidence. Well said. (...) To let you (and myself) somewhat off the hook--part of my hypothetical situation was that Jesus (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Of course. Guantánamo is still Cuba ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Unless you're an Arab, or have an Arab-sounding name, or have been to an Arabic nation recently, or know someone who fits any of the above criteria. Then you can be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," and no presumption of innocence (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Your response is a tired joke in this case -- I think that Shrub's lack of ability in most areas of his past life show he is not trustworthy. What members of his cabinet do in his name shows me he is not trustworthy (Ashcroft re: Patriot Act). (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) <snipped stuff with which I am not necessarily in disagreement> (...) "convincing case" Do I detect a caveat? (...) lol An example of a "convincing case"? So what if after having read this, I, being a Christian man of substantial means (though (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Not an intentional one. I just meant that any powerful being, like Bill Gates or Ashley Judd, could appear before me and make claims of divinity. But I'd need to see/experience convincing evidence (even if it's accessible only to me) before I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Let's go ahead and ignore all the sweeping support GWB received in the state of Texas, and talk just about his tenure as president. I would say successfully launching campaigns to remove both the Taliban and Husein regime from power was a (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) A-ha! If *I* did send a windfall your way, no way would I take credit-- I'd sign the card "from God, to Dave!" :-) (...) Whoa, you lost me. Are you saying that it is possible for an Atheist to accept the existence of a God? (...) Thank you. I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Could you show me where in the federal Constitution the invasion of foreign territories is explicitly laid out as part of the duties of the U.S. President? I must have missed that day in civics class... Pathetic republican apologists unite! -- (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) his >motivations for those actions or not. (...) "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) If the justification is there it is implicit, not explicit. Pedro (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) How about right in the preamble, "provide for the common defense", or how about "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity". Bush has his justifications, even if you don't trust in them. You want to talk about (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) The preamble has no force in law, it is used only as support for interpretting the intent of the legislators. This is similar to how the titles of particular statutes are handled. And if you think the word "defense" means invading a non-nuke (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Does He have to use stamps, or does he just create the card in my mailbox? (...) I think so (though not for me personally). I think the deal is that the atheist doesn't worship the god in question. Maybe this analogy would work: I believe in (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) I think you are confusing atheism, which is to not believe in any god or spiritual entity like gogs, with agnostism. Agnostic people just don't care for religion, but they may believe or not that a God exists. As for you, who believes in (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Boy oh boy are you off the mark. John, would you care to field this one for me? 8^) Dave! (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) cleaning up the messes the previous administration left. North Korea's nuclear program, thanks to Bill Clinton’s foreign policy; Bin Laden never seriously pursued after the first attack on the world trade center, the attack on the USS Cole, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Do you have a dictionnary? Search for atheism. You'll see i'm right. Here, I'll search for you : a·the·ism (click to hear the word) (th-zm) n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) A threat to your Nation exists everywhere, should then your President start a world war to wipe out anything that could someday cause a tragedy? If he considers your attitude is a threat to your countries values of peace and freedom, should (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) I'll try. I think what was being said by Mr. Schuler(1) is as follows: He acknowledges that christians exist and that they do something called worship. He acknowledges that they hold beliefs. They just don't happen to be HIS beliefs. In other (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) I think it was in reference in you specifically stating that Dave! was a non-practicing Christian. Before you, Terry, jump in here with your notions as to who the other 'players' are in o.t-d, it's perhaps good that you do some research on the (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Dave K and Larry have both already answered this for me, but I'll underscore their points in case you missed them. In (URL) I had a go at identifying various kinds/degrees of atheism. In one of these, I speculated, someone might accept the (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Quick, Dave! Convert, there is still time! ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) Eh, we all know that ++Lar is a closet socialist. ;) Dave K (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) lol I just got on-line and see I missed out on all the fun:-) For my part, I thank you for your answers. JOHN (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Sure--it was a good conversation. Maybe a little disappointing for an audience expecting to see us at one another's throats again, but that's how it goes. Dave! (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Like the Schoolhouse Rocks girl at the end of exclamation... Aw darn! That's the end! Dave K (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) :-) They'll have to wait until the POA comes up before the Supremes;-D Seriously, though, most of the people I know well are Christians, and so I don't have a lot of "deeper" conversations with non-religious people (not a chat room type of (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) I salute you, sir, for managing to (properly) end your Schuler-referential sentence with Dave! Well done! There's hope for you yet. ++Lar (Lar:communist :: John Neal:competent/willing 6 wide train builder) (I'm KIDDING!) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
