... who volubly rebel against being so categorized, thus keeping the joke alive. Please, sphere: you are tossing the idea around just as much as anybody. The idea is not going to die a silent death in any case, but if you really want to work toward a silent death, here is my advice: Shut up. "Non-theists" who want to forget about god would do well to steer away from alt.atheism...
... shut up, Spunky. Why should he? If you want your alleged credential accepted, the proof is on your head. Those who express doubt of your claims are under no obligation to justify that doubt until you have provided sufficient evidence to expel such doubt. Credentials don't mean he's correct anyway. -- Enkidu AA#2165 http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/ EAC Chaplain and ...
...admit that my knowledge of that is conditioned by my adopting the Worldview of Existential Realism which is justified by Physics which is justified by accruate predictions. Which does not justify inaccurate spelling. Omigod - a typo flame. When one claims the sort of infallibility that CB keeps claiming, ...
... Russell does not exist? and his point stands. Indeed it does. It proves that idealist subjective epistemological fantasies do not have any existence in the real world. CB, as usual, misses the point. Russell's argument is that there can be no logical argument by which CB's claims can be justified. AS CB has not refuted that argument, CB's philosophy is unjustifiable.
...> Put up or shut up, Spunky. Why should he? If you want your alleged credential accepted, the proof is on your head. Those who express doubt of your claims are under no obligation to justify that doubt until you have provided sufficient evidence to expel such doubt. -- "The main problem with giving people free choice is that they will usually make the wrong choice." ...
... that what I said above is not true? You don't want to answer that because you know I will then force you into a "put up or shut up" condition and you do not want to lose $10,000, assuming you even have it which is higly unlikely. We still have only your word for it, and sufficient evidence of the unreliability of your word to justify doubt of the truth of your word.
...> You are supposed to be attempting to rationally justify your assertion as to the existence of a Supreme Being. .... I see where you have asserted it many times, but justify it? Not that I have seen. Maybe you could do it in ... a claim. You have not been able to prove, demonstrate, or logically justify your claim using the premises you and I have agreed ...
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:21:12 GMT, in alt.atheism spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote in <45991244.168477906@news-server.houston.rr.com>: On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:53:14 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: Anyone who has taken high school sciences can see that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. LOL. Anyone who has taken high school sciences is not ...
... I admit that my knowledge of that is conditioned by my adopting the Worldview of Existential Realism which is justified by Physics which is justified by accruate predictions. Which does not justify inaccurate spelling. Omigod - a typo flame. I'm not going to deduct a point for that because it ...
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:42:48 -0700, in alt.atheism Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in <virgil-AAFD3D.13424831122006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>: In article <2d7gp2tqo4hbf3qbjvudgvs1b4na8fbstj@4ax.com>, Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote: In the USA, those who lack believe in any god, without any necessity of believing anything else, call themselves atheist. They also ...
