JohnR said:
So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally,
there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
effected by
widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth
control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action
would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't
perpetrate upon another.
...unless you've asked
On 08/09/2006, at 7:54 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist
does, or a
least not as much that is correct.
Yes, that's clear.
But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
John W Redelfs wrote:
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an
atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But
neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious
people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things
you cannot understand
Ritu said:
That's not necessarily true. Belief is not a prerequisite for
understanding words on a paper. While the scriptures cannot be accepted
without belief, understanding them is a simpler task. And all the latter
requires are tools of basic comprehension, further study, and reasearch.
John W Redelfs wrote:
So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of
abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that
collapse
and
civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily
ask Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse? (You may
be
offended,
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of
the
transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are
believed
by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality
that
exists
On 08/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
true and another might actually be wrong.
I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a you're
wrong... no, you are type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.
On 08/09/2006, at 2:20 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I hesitate to write the following, as while I have been thinking about
this post for some time, the recent thread on religion makes this
post
somewhat dangerous. So I'll just say up front that I am not going to
get involved in an atheism vs.
Rich said:
I think JohnR's argument is that belief breathes the fire
into the words and unless you believe you don't experience
that fire and so don't truly understand.
But aren't the words, or the ideas behind them, supposed to breathe the
fire? I can go as far as a suspension of
Charlie Bell wrote:
I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a
you're
wrong... no, you are type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or
Charlie Bell wrote:
Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
Ritu
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Fool wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit around
here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists
get into the ring to slug it out
On 08/09/2006, at 2:51 PM, Ritu wrote:
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or point
and laugh or whatever.
That means that it would be rude to say anything about the notion of
'One and Only True Way',
On 08/09/2006, at 2:53 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
That's a good answer.
Charlie
___
On 08/09/2006, at 3:14 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
The Fool wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit
around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
Charlie said:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it -
there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
*g*
Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just
fine tonight, but will feel like dying tomorrow morning. :)
Ritu
Jim Sharkey wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit
around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and
devout theists get into the ring to
Charlie wrote:
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all
religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or point
and laugh or whatever.
That means that it would be rude to say anything about the
notion of
'One and Only True Way', doesn't
Alberto wrote
And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the
living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat?
Alberto,
If you don't want to host the party, just say so. We'll just find
another venue. There's no need to rustle up a gruesome menu
Ritu
GCU
On 8 Sep 2006, at 1:33PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie said:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it -
there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
*g*
Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just
fine tonight, but will feel like
JDG said:
I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
true and another might actually be wrong.
I'm clearly not neglecting that possibility and in fact in this thread
have been fairly open to it. However, nobody has yet presented me with a
criterion for deciding which
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire --
unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new docudrama
called The Path to 9/11. ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the
two-night production,
Charlie Bell wrote:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it - there's
no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of course, you're going to
be sorry tomorrow, but as long as you accept that going in...
Jim
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout
theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we are, I can bring
popcorn if someone else will bring the beers!
And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the
A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our
military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out
of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops
to make sacrifices for the current wars. Although I certainly had
some idea that
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our
military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out
of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops
to make sacrifices for the current wars. Although I
On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:
Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:
I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of
personal
wishes and comfort as anything else.
I disagree -
On 08/09/2006, at 5:15 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it
- there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of course,
you're going to be sorry
Hi!
Hello, HELLO... earth calling ethereal c
On Sep 7, 2006, at 10:00 PM, John W Redelfs wrote:
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism,
because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat
eaters
Warren,
Brilliant rebuttal. Your examples and premise work for me!
{no further comment below}
-Jonathan-
On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
There's a bit of convolution here; before a meaningful discussion can
happen in some areas I think some of it has to be untangled.
On
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the
On 8 Sep 2006, at 4:27PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:
Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:
I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of
personal
wishes
On Behalf Of William T Goodall
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism :
Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.
Am I the only one who read this and thought, huh? Can you parse
that out for me...?
- jmh
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
On 8 Sep 2006, at 5:23PM, Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of William T Goodall
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism :
Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.
Am I the only one who read this and thought, huh? Can you parse
that out
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
challenged accounting methods.
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now. And probably yours too - but a difference furnace, one
William T Goodall wrote:
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
Hmmm... No. I think:
Agnosticism: ~Believe (God(s) exist) is true
~Believe (God(s) exist) is ~true.
Alberto Monteiro
___
Nick Arnett wrote:
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military
dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that.
And Iraq is so much better off now?
I don't know. _I_ am much better now [without Saddam] than I
On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
challenged accounting methods.
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now.
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the body
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:17 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Loss (was: Religious freedom)
Then, last Saturday, my
Dad died at the age of 90...and I just got
Jim Sharkey wrote:
] The Fool wrote:
] E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
] Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of
] shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
]
] Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
] and devout theists
I'll stop by Joe's Artificial Organ and Taco Stand on the way.
- Original Message
From: Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2006 5:51:01 AM
Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Alberto wrote
And who's bringing the fried
William T Goodall wrote:
...
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).
William--
But normal binary logic is
On Behalf Of David Hobby
William T Goodall wrote:
...
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent
since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).
jdiebremse wrote:
...
The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire --
unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new docudrama
called The Path to 9/11. ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the
two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event,
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Who's arguing absolute pacifism?
I operate on the Fight end of the Spectrum and not Fear, but that
doesn't mean I need to reduce everything to fisticuffs. I simply face
my fears head on. It's the only way that works for me.
I don't understand your ref to atomic
William said:
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)
exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.
Dave Land wrote:
Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of
this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve
the drug problem, I think I would accept this price.
Easy for you to say. Make sure you're number 1 of 100,000, if
you want your bravado to mean
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:
William said:
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)
exist}
On Sep 8, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Dave Land wrote:
Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of
this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve
the drug problem, I think I would accept this price.
Easy for you to say. Make
On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or
disprove a deity...
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
...whereas atheists disbelieve
On 9 Sep 2006, at 12:44AM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or
disprove a deity...
Or unknowable which isn't the same thing.
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:
...
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)
exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.
They *could* mean that of
On 9 Sep 2006, at 1:55AM, David Hobby wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:
...
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God
(s) exist} is either unknown or possibly
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:25PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has
definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has*
been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as
hoping it will stop on its own is not faring very well
at this point.
On 9 Sep 2006, at 2:36AM, William T Goodall wrote:
For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.
That's a heuristic of course.
Assumptions Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
It was the
Ann Holland wrote:
Remember to honor those who have served and this great country we
have the privilege to live in!!! God Bless America!
Earlier today I was informed that I would be working at Chase Tower on
Monday and Tuesday.
Later it dawned upon me that on 9/11 (Monday) I would be working
http://tinyurl.com/r22k8
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 09/09/2006)
A church minister who befriended elderly parishioners before forging
documents to inherit their property and possessions was given 240
hours community service yesterday.
Tony Craggs appeared the caring and enthusiastic minister
On 9/8/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course, I'd be curious how many letters you wrote to movie
theatres to get them to keep Farenheit 911* off the screens
Fahrenheit 911 was slanted, hugely slanted. It raised questions that
could be interpreted as innuendo. It
62 matches
Mail list logo
