 | | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I also like the point of his tirade--Bible thumping Christians who think they have all the answers and like to force their POV down the throats of others is contemptable. (...) You wrote it below--is computer geek for the word 'not' 2 + not 2 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) If you can recommend any such books I would be greatly interested to explore them. I would steer you away from such authors as William Lane Craig, William Dembski, or Michael Denton, all of whom commit grievous logical and statistical errors. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Understood and agreed...Using Atheism was a bad example...most everything else I said has been snipped. Again I refute Richard's statement that merely calling yourself a Christian makes you a Christian and refer you to the 2 definitions for (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Well Hoppy, I see that you're on a tirade, and, for the most part, a perfectly understandable one. However, your little rant above is not called for. I didn't mention at all my convictions, but am pointing out what may be a reasonably (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: Richard has put his finger exactly on the problem, but I was interested in the underlying logic of the questaion and decided to go ahead anyway for clarity's sake. (...) I'm afraid that this notation (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
What the ****?! Belief has nothing to do with anything. Get it through your thick skulls. The existence or non-existence of a possible god is not so far an observed phenomena. End of story. If you want to believe in the bogeyman in the sky, go right (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
The family: myth and reality (URL) Families in the real world are often not what the policy makers think. And 'the family' everywhere is under immense stress from rapid economic, social and environmental changes. In this Year of the Family Jodi (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Are they inherently different? Saying 2 + !2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = !5 Both equations are superfluously different, but inherently they are stating the same thing. Whether you say "I believe that God does not exist" or "I don't believe (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Justin, your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of atheism. Consider the following statements: A: I believe that God does not exist. B: I do not believe that God exists. Do you see that these two statements are (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Let's see: 1. Mary, unemployed, but that's okay 2. Joseph, employed, but later disappears from all record 3. James, child by marriage 4. Jesus, child by a contemporaneous extramarital union who grows up to be executed for sedition Doesn't (...) (22 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
