|
|
 | | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
| (...) I've heard the argument that since an agnostic doesn't actively believe in god, they are technically a subset of atheists. I might call it 'soft atheism' versus 'hard atheism.' This is actually something I've been thinking about recently. How (...) (19 years ago, 24-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
| (...) Ahhh, but see is unrestrained murder of thousands of your subjects "more ultimate" than the murder of the guy that breaks into your house? If so, how can murder be the "ultimate crime"? If not, why do they carry different sentences? (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
| (...) lol, my veiled point was making a distinction between the definition of the term "atheism" and one such as "agnostic", which I assume that you are (technically). JOHN (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
| (...) Probably true, and it's a shame. We've discussed Pat Robertson before, and what a shame it would be if he were everyone's idea of a "typical" Christian. (...) I hear that all the time, and it baffles me! Besides, I've told you before--if it (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
| (...) Ha, and that study was conducted in my own backyard! I think this is a classic case of misunderstanding. As an atheist, you have been tarred by the likes of Michael Newdow, from whom I'll bet 99% of the GP draw their conclusions about y'all. I (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
| (URL) are not to be trusted... Dave! (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
| (...) Now, now, settle down, Dave! I'm pretty sure that the word "ultimate" pre-existed some apocryphal, presidential playbook and no association with OFL whatsoever was intended. (...) Let's see. (...) See? You got it on the first try! :-) (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
| (...) All that "ultimate punishment" talk is, alas, straight from the George W. Bush buzzword lexicon. In typical Dubya fashion, it enables him to sound tough without actually taking a definitive stand. Since I know you to be a person of conviction (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
| (...) Okay, Tom, let me take a stab at justifying a position such as this one. A pro-life stance would hold that a human life above all is sacred. So, the ultimate crime would be the taking of an innocent life. Therefore, the ultimate punishment (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
| Honest question - which is more ridiculous? 1 - pro-life and pro-death-penalty 2 - pro-choice and anti-death-penalty I don't know, but I see far too many conservatives that fit #1, which makes little sense. And of course I see a decent amount of (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
