| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lynx
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
 |
|
theo wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 27, 10:51 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo, a typical PITA atheist, wrote:
Learn to read Pete. It is common to leave in a persons name to show
historical continuity even if that person is not being quoted or
responded to.
Get a life Theo! The only time I hear from you is to nitpick over
something as trivial as this which is of no consequence. And I can read
quite well, thank you. You're just grasping at straws in a pathetic
attempt to find fault. There's no 'historical continuity' here. There's
nothing in his post that I said. My name should not even be there, and
his post should not be addressed to me, viz..
I'm not looking to find fault Pete. I gave you an explanation of why
your name would be there without any of what you said. You choose to
rail at a poster who didn't do anything wrong to you. He diod not
attribute anyhting to you in that post.
Theo
|
Whatever Theo. for christ sake get a life!! He ADDRESSED the post to me,
which caused me to read it! there was nothing in it that I said. I
didn't 'rail' against him, I just pointed out that there was nothing
there that I wrote. The post started 'lynx wrote:' there was NOTHING
there that I wrote. Whether I used the term 'attribute' correctly or
not- according to you- is irrelevant. There was nothing in the post
'attributed' to me. My criticism was justified. What is not justified is
all the fuss you're making of it. And for what purpose for fucks sake!
You say you don't want to find fault, but exactly what and ALL you're
doing- even to the point of raising the issue 'Historiacal continutity',
lol! You're an idiot! As I said Pasta Dave should never have replied to
my post. It seemed as if his comments were addressed to me, and they
weren't. Now maybe you don't have better things to do than this
bullshit, but I assure you I have! bugger off!! pita athiest! |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
theo
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
On Aug 27, 2:15 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo, a typical PITA atheist, wrote:
Learn to read Pete. It is common to leave in a persons name to show
historical continuity even if that person is not being quoted or
responded to.
Get a life Theo! The only time I hear from you is to nitpick over
something as trivial as this which is of no consequence. And I can read
quite well, thank you. You're just grasping at straws in a pathetic
attempt to find fault. There's no 'historical continuity' here. There's
nothing in his post that I said. My name should not even be there, and
his post should not be addressed to me, viz..
I'm not looking to find fault Pete. I gave you an explanation of why
your name would be there without any of what you said. You choose to
rail at a poster who didn't do anything wrong to you. He diod not
attribute anyhting to you in that post.
Theo
Whatever Theo. for christ sake get a life!! He ADDRESSED the post to me,
which caused me to read it! there was nothing in it that I said. I
didn't 'rail' against him, I just pointed out that there was nothing
there that I wrote. The post started 'lynx wrote:' there was NOTHING
there that I wrote. Whether I used the term 'attribute' correctly or
not- according to you- is irrelevant. There was nothing in the post
'attributed' to me. My criticism was justified. What is not justified is
all the fuss you're making of it. And for what purpose for fucks sake!
You say you don't want to find fault, but exactly what and ALL you're
doing- even to the point of raising the issue 'Historiacal continutity',
lol! You're an idiot! As I said Pasta Dave should never have replied to
my post. It seemed as if his comments were addressed to me, and they
weren't. Now maybe you don't have better things to do than this
bullshit, but I assure you I have! bugger off!! pita athiest!- Hide quoted text -
|
Well that bait worked, must get some more.
Theo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
lynx
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
theo wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 27, 2:15 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo, a typical PITA atheist, wrote:
Learn to read Pete. It is common to leave in a persons name to show
historical continuity even if that person is not being quoted or
responded to.
Get a life Theo! The only time I hear from you is to nitpick over
something as trivial as this which is of no consequence. And I can read
quite well, thank you. You're just grasping at straws in a pathetic
attempt to find fault. There's no 'historical continuity' here. There's
nothing in his post that I said. My name should not even be there, and
his post should not be addressed to me, viz..
I'm not looking to find fault Pete. I gave you an explanation of why
your name would be there without any of what you said. You choose to
rail at a poster who didn't do anything wrong to you. He diod not
attribute anyhting to you in that post.
Theo
Whatever Theo. for christ sake get a life!! He ADDRESSED the post to me,
which caused me to read it! there was nothing in it that I said. I
didn't 'rail' against him, I just pointed out that there was nothing
there that I wrote. The post started 'lynx wrote:' there was NOTHING
there that I wrote. Whether I used the term 'attribute' correctly or
not- according to you- is irrelevant. There was nothing in the post
'attributed' to me. My criticism was justified. What is not justified is
all the fuss you're making of it. And for what purpose for fucks sake!
You say you don't want to find fault, but exactly what and ALL you're
doing- even to the point of raising the issue 'Historiacal continutity',
lol! You're an idiot! As I said Pasta Dave should never have replied to
my post. It seemed as if his comments were addressed to me, and they
weren't. Now maybe you don't have better things to do than this
bullshit, but I assure you I have! bugger off!! pita athiest!
Well that bait worked, must get some more.
|
yeah right..
Never admit to being wrong tho. And by implication, you're saying you
deliberately try to annoy me and waste my time. And you expect me to
appreciate that? Have a lousy day!
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Barry Ogrady
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
"lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:hgmtk.31893$IK1.24424@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Quote: | theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:15 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo, a typical PITA atheist, wrote:
Learn to read Pete. It is common to leave in a persons name to show
historical continuity even if that person is not being quoted or
responded to.
Get a life Theo! The only time I hear from you is to nitpick over
something as trivial as this which is of no consequence. And I can
read
quite well, thank you. You're just grasping at straws in a pathetic
attempt to find fault. There's no 'historical continuity' here.
There's
nothing in his post that I said. My name should not even be there, and
his post should not be addressed to me, viz..
I'm not looking to find fault Pete. I gave you an explanation of why
your name would be there without any of what you said. You choose to
rail at a poster who didn't do anything wrong to you. He diod not
attribute anyhting to you in that post.
Theo
Whatever Theo. for christ sake get a life!! He ADDRESSED the post to me,
which caused me to read it! there was nothing in it that I said. I
didn't 'rail' against him, I just pointed out that there was nothing
there that I wrote. The post started 'lynx wrote:' there was NOTHING
there that I wrote. Whether I used the term 'attribute' correctly or
not- according to you- is irrelevant. There was nothing in the post
'attributed' to me. My criticism was justified. What is not justified is
all the fuss you're making of it. And for what purpose for fucks sake!
You say you don't want to find fault, but exactly what and ALL you're
doing- even to the point of raising the issue 'Historiacal continutity',
lol! You're an idiot! As I said Pasta Dave should never have replied to
my post. It seemed as if his comments were addressed to me, and they
weren't. Now maybe you don't have better things to do than this
bullshit, but I assure you I have! bugger off!! pita athiest!
Well that bait worked, must get some more.
yeah right..
Never admit to being wrong tho. And by implication, you're saying you
deliberately try to annoy me and waste my time. And you expect me to
appreciate that? Have a lousy day!
|
I don't think Theo had intended it as bait and was surprised when it worked
that way.
Many of us atheists do not think that way and can actually have a respectful
converstation with non-atheists.
>> Theo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
lynx
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
Barry Ogrady wrote:
| Quote: | "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:hgmtk.31893$IK1.24424@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:15 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo, a typical PITA atheist, wrote:
Learn to read Pete. It is common to leave in a persons name to show
historical continuity even if that person is not being quoted or
responded to.
Get a life Theo! The only time I hear from you is to nitpick over
something as trivial as this which is of no consequence. And I can
read
quite well, thank you. You're just grasping at straws in a pathetic
attempt to find fault. There's no 'historical continuity' here.
There's
nothing in his post that I said. My name should not even be there, and
his post should not be addressed to me, viz..
I'm not looking to find fault Pete. I gave you an explanation of why
your name would be there without any of what you said. You choose to
rail at a poster who didn't do anything wrong to you. He diod not
attribute anyhting to you in that post.
Whatever Theo. for christ sake get a life!! He ADDRESSED the post to me,
which caused me to read it! there was nothing in it that I said. I
didn't 'rail' against him, I just pointed out that there was nothing
there that I wrote. The post started 'lynx wrote:' there was NOTHING
there that I wrote. Whether I used the term 'attribute' correctly or
not- according to you- is irrelevant. There was nothing in the post
'attributed' to me. My criticism was justified. What is not justified is
all the fuss you're making of it. And for what purpose for fucks sake!
You say you don't want to find fault, but exactly what and ALL you're
doing- even to the point of raising the issue 'Historiacal continutity',
lol! You're an idiot! As I said Pasta Dave should never have replied to
my post. It seemed as if his comments were addressed to me, and they
weren't. Now maybe you don't have better things to do than this
bullshit, but I assure you I have! bugger off!! pita athiest!
Well that bait worked, must get some more.
yeah right..
Never admit to being wrong tho. And by implication, you're saying you
deliberately try to annoy me and waste my time. And you expect me to
appreciate that? Have a lousy day!
I don't think Theo had intended it as bait and was surprised when it worked
that way.
|
That was just Theo's way out because he couldn't refute my arguments. So
he suggested he was just doing it for fun.
| Quote: | Many of us atheists do not think that way and can actually have a respectful
converstation with non-atheists.
|
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to. The problem with
atheists occurs when they perceive that the other person is challenging
their position. That's when they become hostile. From what I've seen of
you, I consider you to be more agnostic than atheist, and anti-religion,
especially Christianity. I consider anyone who concedes that their
belief that God does not exist could be in error to be agnostic. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
theo
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
On Aug 28, 5:26 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to. The problem with
atheists occurs when they perceive that the other person is challenging
their position. That's when they become hostile. From what I've seen of
you, I consider you to be more agnostic than atheist, and anti-religion,
especially Christianity. I consider anyone who concedes that their
belief that God does not exist could be in error to be agnostic.
|
Sorry Pete, but I can't agree with that. I concede that there may be
little green men living below the surface of Mars. I also concede
there may be a God. I don't believe that makes me a 'greenie' or an
aganostic. The reason I concede these things is that it is impossible
to prove a negative. On the other hand, a positiove is usually quite
easy to prove. e.g. there are people living on earth, there are stars
in the sky and they are very similar to our sun.
Your turn, try this one. There is a god. Please provide detailed
working in your proof.
Theo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
theo
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
On Aug 29, 7:32 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | theo wrote:
Sorry Pete, but I can't agree with that. I concede that there may be
little green men living below the surface of Mars.
But you are not holding the position that little green men do not exist
below the surface of mars, are you. So that's a different kettle of fish.
|
I am indeed holding the position that there are no little green men on
Mars. But I am not closing my mind to the opposite, should it be
revealed.
| Quote: | I also concede there may be a God.
Contrary to your position that no gods exist..
|
I don't understand why you see that as a conflict Pete. I concede
there may be a Tooth Fairy, but, until she manifests herself, I will
hold she doesn't exist. Holding a view that there is a very remote
possibility that there are things that may exist, even though they
don't appear to exist to me, doesn't, in my opinion, change my stance
as a holder of the view that they don't exist.
| Quote: | I don't believe that makes me a 'greenie' or an
aganostic. The reason I concede these things is that it is impossible
to prove a negative. On the other hand, a positiove is usually quite
easy to prove.
Not when we're talking about these issues- we cannot prove the existence
of God. But I'm only talking about my view here, and I'm not saying it
should be universally accepted. My reasoning is that if an atheist is
someone who believes that God does not exist, then the acceptance of the
possibility of God's existence changes that position and it more rightly
becomes agnostic. Similarly a person who says they believe God exists,
but then says maybe God does not exist, is likewise not a true theist.
|
So if someone once doubted that God exists they are not a true theist?
Hello Rowland, hallo Chuckie. I don't agree with a view that narrow.
Most people I grew up with in an RC community, and an RC school, did
at some time doubt their chosen Deity.
| Quote: | Your turn,
I've had it.. 
|
You've avoided it.
Theo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
lynx
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
theo wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 28, 5:26 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to. The problem with
atheists occurs when they perceive that the other person is challenging
their position. That's when they become hostile. From what I've seen of
you, I consider you to be more agnostic than atheist, and anti-religion,
especially Christianity. I consider anyone who concedes that their
belief that God does not exist could be in error to be agnostic.
Sorry Pete, but I can't agree with that. I concede that there may be
little green men living below the surface of Mars.
|
But you are not holding the position that little green men do not exist
below the surface of mars, are you. So that's a different kettle of fish.
| Quote: | I also concede there may be a God.
|
Contrary to your position that no gods exist..
| Quote: | I don't believe that makes me a 'greenie' or an
aganostic. The reason I concede these things is that it is impossible
to prove a negative. On the other hand, a positiove is usually quite
easy to prove.
|
Not when we're talking about these issues- we cannot prove the existence
of God. But I'm only talking about my view here, and I'm not saying it
should be universally accepted. My reasoning is that if an atheist is
someone who believes that God does not exist, then the acceptance of the
possibility of God's existence changes that position and it more rightly
becomes agnostic. Similarly a person who says they believe God exists,
but then says maybe God does not exist, is likewise not a true theist.
| Quote: | e.g. there are people living on earth, there are stars
in the sky and they are very similar to our sun.
Your turn,
|
I've had it..
| Quote: | try this one. There is a god. Please provide detailed
working in your proof.
Theo
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Barry OGrady
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:26:47 GMT, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Barry Ogrady wrote:
"lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:hgmtk.31893$IK1.24424@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:15 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo, a typical PITA atheist, wrote:
Learn to read Pete. It is common to leave in a persons name to show
historical continuity even if that person is not being quoted or
responded to.
Get a life Theo! The only time I hear from you is to nitpick over
something as trivial as this which is of no consequence. And I can
read
quite well, thank you. You're just grasping at straws in a pathetic
attempt to find fault. There's no 'historical continuity' here.
There's
nothing in his post that I said. My name should not even be there, and
his post should not be addressed to me, viz..
I'm not looking to find fault Pete. I gave you an explanation of why
your name would be there without any of what you said. You choose to
rail at a poster who didn't do anything wrong to you. He diod not
attribute anyhting to you in that post.
Whatever Theo. for christ sake get a life!! He ADDRESSED the post to me,
which caused me to read it! there was nothing in it that I said. I
didn't 'rail' against him, I just pointed out that there was nothing
there that I wrote. The post started 'lynx wrote:' there was NOTHING
there that I wrote. Whether I used the term 'attribute' correctly or
not- according to you- is irrelevant. There was nothing in the post
'attributed' to me. My criticism was justified. What is not justified is
all the fuss you're making of it. And for what purpose for fucks sake!
You say you don't want to find fault, but exactly what and ALL you're
doing- even to the point of raising the issue 'Historiacal continutity',
lol! You're an idiot! As I said Pasta Dave should never have replied to
my post. It seemed as if his comments were addressed to me, and they
weren't. Now maybe you don't have better things to do than this
bullshit, but I assure you I have! bugger off!! pita athiest!
Well that bait worked, must get some more.
yeah right..
Never admit to being wrong tho. And by implication, you're saying you
deliberately try to annoy me and waste my time. And you expect me to
appreciate that? Have a lousy day!
I don't think Theo had intended it as bait and was surprised when it worked
that way.
That was just Theo's way out because he couldn't refute my arguments. So
he suggested he was just doing it for fun.
Many of us atheists do not think that way and can actually have a respectful
converstation with non-atheists.
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to. The problem with
atheists occurs when they perceive that the other person is challenging
their position. That's when they become hostile. From what I've seen of
you, I consider you to be more agnostic than atheist, and anti-religion,
especially Christianity.
|
That's interesting. I like to think of myself as a strong atheist though I
can imagine there are things out there some people could call a god.
| Quote: | I consider anyone who concedes that their
belief that God does not exist could be in error to be agnostic.
|
I have no doubt the Christian God does not exist.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
lynx
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Infants 'have natural belief in God' |
|
|
theo wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 29, 7:32 am, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
theo wrote:
Sorry Pete, but I can't agree with that. I concede that there may be
little green men living below the surface of Mars.
But you are not holding the position that little green men do not exist
below the surface of mars, are you. So that's a different kettle of fish.
I am indeed holding the position that there are no little green men on
Mars. But I am not closing my mind to the opposite, should it be
revealed.
I also concede there may be a God.
Contrary to your position that no gods exist..
I don't understand why you see that as a conflict Pete. I concede
there may be a Tooth Fairy, but, until she manifests herself, I will
hold she doesn't exist. Holding a view that there is a very remote
possibility that there are things that may exist, even though they
don't appear to exist to me, doesn't, in my opinion, change my stance
as a holder of the view that they don't exist.
I don't believe that makes me a 'greenie' or an
aganostic. The reason I concede these things is that it is impossible
to prove a negative. On the other hand, a positiove is usually quite
easy to prove.
Not when we're talking about these issues- we cannot prove the existence
of God. But I'm only talking about my view here, and I'm not saying it
should be universally accepted. My reasoning is that if an atheist is
someone who believes that God does not exist, then the acceptance of the
possibility of God's existence changes that position and it more rightly
becomes agnostic. Similarly a person who says they believe God exists,
but then says maybe God does not exist, is likewise not a true theist.
So if someone once doubted that God exists they are not a true theist?
Hello Rowland, hallo Chuckie.
|
No, stupid. I said a person who does not hold firm to their position
that God exists is not a true theist. Anyone can have doubts. It's what
ppl do with their doubts that counts- whether they dismiss or suppress
them and maintain their position, or whether they acknowledge or
concede, especially publicly, that the contrary position to theirs may
be true.. you know, like you have done. There's a huge gap between a
man having a fleeting thought that it's possible his wife could be
unfaithful, and confessing to a friend that he thinks she may be having
an affair.
| Quote: | I don't agree with a view that narrow.
Most people I grew up with in an RC community, and an RC school, did
at some time doubt their chosen Deity.
Your turn,
I've had it.. :)
You've avoided it.
|
I've avoided nothing. You asked.. "There is a god. Please provide
detailed working in your proof." Firstly I don't take orders from you,
and secondly I said all that I wanted to say, and thirdly we both know
the existence of God cannot be proven, and fourthly, I'm not interested
in arguing with you anyway. You've made your position quite clear on
these issues.
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
