| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:48 am Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
 |
|
tonicopm@walla.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 4, 6:42 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
To not believe, you must not believe.
That is a belief.-
**************************************************************
You don>t say! Let>s try this wonderful syllogism of yours with some
other verbs:
== "to not steal, you must not steal.
That>s a robbery"
[/quote]
Wrong.
You did not steal.
No robbery.
You apparently do not know the meaning of of the word
"steal" if you say such.
[quote]== To not pray, you must not pray.
That>s a prayer"
[/quote]
Wrong
Not praying is just simply, not praying.
Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word "praying"
to say such.
[quote]== To not kill, you must not kill.
That>s a killing"
[/quote]
No again,
If you have not killed, you have not killed.
And again, you must not know the meaning of the word kill
to say such.
[quote]Really ingenious, ain>t it!??
[/quote]
No,
It is your ignorance of the meaning of the word.
belief and that closely follows the above thoughts you say
follow my statement but yet do not follow it for real.
Apparently you would also say that if you refused
to make a choice, that would mean you did not make
that choice to not make that choice.
:)
Your choosing to not make a choice about belief,
is a choice to believe that you don>t believe.
HA HA!
You worship "no god" and your belief system proves it!
LOL
:) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
<tonicopm@walla.com> wrote in message
news:52d4dfd0-da73-4202-b0ee-1f7e8f0745a9@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 6:42 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]jerry wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Tonico wrote:
It>s an old habit, specially among religious fundamentalists, to
"accuse" atheism of being a religion, or a belief.
Hmm?
So an athiest does not "believe" that God does not exist?
LOL
Proposition A: There exists a god or gods.
Definition of a theist: a person that believes Proposition A
is true.
An atheist is by definition anyone who isn>t a theist. That
doesn>t at all mean an atheist believes Proposition A is false.
To not believe, you must not believe.
That is a belief.-
[/quote]
**************************************************************
You don>t say! Let>s try this wonderful syllogism of yours with some
other verbs:
== "to not steal, you must not steal.
That>s a robbery"
== To not pray, you must not pray.
That>s a prayer"
== To not kill, you must not kill.
That>s a killing"
Really ingenious, ain>t it!??
Regards
Tonio
============================================
"Spaceman" isn>t the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer.
I believe I do not believe in any god. That>s a belief I do not
believe, and I do not believe I even said that. (Instead, I wrote it.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
[/quote]
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tonico
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 5:00 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee
[/quote]
*************************************************************
Hehe...that one was funny, because by now you should know that I am a
mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
mathematician, remember?
Anyway, pretty boring and lame way to dodge the questions and avoid
the debate.
Oh, well.
Regards
Tonio |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tonico
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 5, 10:48 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]tonic...@walla.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:42 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
To not believe, you must not believe.
That is a belief.-
**************************************************************
You don>t say! Let>s try this wonderful syllogism of yours with some
other verbs:
== "to not steal, you must not steal.
That>s a robbery"
Wrong.
You did not steal.
No robbery.
You apparently do not know the meaning of of the word
"steal" if you say such.
== To not pray, you must not pray.
That>s a prayer"
Wrong
Not praying is just simply, not praying.
Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word "praying"
to say such.
== To not kill, you must not kill.
That>s a killing"
No again,
If you have not killed, you have not killed.
And again, you must not know the meaning of the word kill
to say such.
Really ingenious, ain>t it!??
No,
It is your ignorance of the meaning of the word.
belief and that closely follows the above thoughts you say
follow my statement but yet do not follow it for real.
Apparently you would also say that if you refused
to make a choice, that would mean you did not make
that choice to not make that choice.
:)
Your choosing to not make a choice about belief,
is a choice to believe that you don>t believe.
HA HA!
You worship "no god" and your belief system proves it!
LOL
:)
[/quote]
***********************************************************
Yeah...those "HA HA" and "LOL" at the end of your post really put
things into perpective.
Regards
Tonio |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 1:08 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 5:00 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee
Hehe...that one was funny, because by now you should know that I am a
mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
mathematician, remember?
[/quote]
Who can believe that you are a mathematician?
I quoted a valid application of Godel>s theorem:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." -- John Barrow
You completely missed the relevance of that quote as if you never
heard of Godel>s theorem. Instead, you whine about the author in an
idiotic way and prove that you don>t appreciate the statement:
"The only John Barrow I know of is the congressman from Georgia, and
to
quote the words of a USA congressman as the background for whatever
seems to be a rather unimpressive thing anywhere, leave alone in
sci.math."
Isn>t it more likely that the author is John D. Barrow
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow ),
the English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician that
has authored or co-authored the 86 math and physics books listed at
amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20D.%20Barrow
A quick internet search reveals that John Barrow>s statement, which
you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
Russell:
http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
properly and that your protest is pure ignorance. And everything else
you wrote was just more of the same -- you ignorantly whining about
your complete misunderstanding of my arguments.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tonico
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 4:26 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 1:08 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:00 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee
Hehe...that one was funny, because by now you should know that I am a
mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
mathematician, remember?
Who can believe that you are a mathematician?
I quoted a valid application of Godel>s theorem:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." -- John Barrow
You completely missed the relevance of that quote as if you never
heard of Godel>s theorem. Instead, you whine about the author in an
idiotic way and prove that you don>t appreciate the statement:
"The only John Barrow I know of is the congressman from Georgia, and
to
quote the words of a USA congressman as the background for whatever
seems to be a rather unimpressive thing anywhere, leave alone in
sci.math."
Isn>t it more likely that the author is John D. Barrow
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow),
the English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician that
has authored or co-authored the 86 math and physics books listed at
amazon.com?http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_s...
A quick internet search reveals that John Barrow>s statement, which
you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
Russell:http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
properly and that your protest is pure ignorance.
[/quote]
***********************************************************
No. That tells that YOU didn>t credit the source proprly. Don>t put
the blame on others.
And in spite of being a great fan of Bertie Ruseell, I still think
that assumed definition of religion is a rather simplistic one, but it
really doesn>t matter: you, as usual, did NOT address my arguments and
and preferred to talk nonsnese about marginal stuff (J. Barrow was NOT
the gist of the discussion...did you notice?), and OTOH, you went
straight to ad hominems and insulting.
Pretty poor display from you...as usual. Keep targeted on Hilbert.
Regards
Tonio |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 10:59 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 4:26 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:08 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:00 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee
Hehe...that one was funny, because by now you should know that I am a
mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
mathematician, remember?
Who can believe that you are a mathematician?
I quoted a valid application of Godel>s theorem:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." -- John Barrow
You completely missed the relevance of that quote as if you never
heard of Godel>s theorem. Instead, you whine about the author in an
idiotic way and prove that you don>t appreciate the statement:
"The only John Barrow I know of is the congressman from Georgia, and
to
quote the words of a USA congressman as the background for whatever
seems to be a rather unimpressive thing anywhere, leave alone in
sci.math."
Isn>t it more likely that the author is John D. Barrow
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow),
the English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician that
has authored or co-authored the 86 math and physics books listed at
amazon.com?
A quick internet search reveals that John Barrow>s statement, which
you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
Russell: http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
properly and that your protest is pure ignorance.
***********************************************************
No. That tells that YOU didn>t credit the source proprly.
[/quote]
Don>t be an ignoramus.
[quote]I still think that assumed definition of religion is a rather
simplistic one,
[/quote]
Your non-mathematical thinking is irrelevant. According to David
Hilbert>s philosophy of physics, I am free to specify any consistent
definition or axiom set I prefer and thereby create any model universe
I want. As part of the universe of my creation, I chose a respectable
definition according to mathematicians:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --Bertrand Russell
"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
of reason which may be present. [Atheism], for example, would be a
religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique
position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous
demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified." --H. Eves,
In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1969.
Your whining that I argued that it would be logically correct to
replace "Quantum mechanics" with the word "Atheism" in the given
mathematically consistent illustration, after I first quoted H. Eves
correctly, is retarded. Atheism satisfies the quoted definition of
religion. You>re obviously just a religious bigot that is angered by a
mathematical argument.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 11:59 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]
[/quote]
I think the quote, whether from Barrow or Russell, is very meaningful.
Of course, that presupposes a certain level of cognizance. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 9:13 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 10:59 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:26 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:08 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:00 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee
Hehe...that one was funny, because by now you should know that I am a
mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
mathematician, remember?
Who can believe that you are a mathematician?
I quoted a valid application of Godel>s theorem:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." -- John Barrow
You completely missed the relevance of that quote as if you never
heard of Godel>s theorem. Instead, you whine about the author in an
idiotic way and prove that you don>t appreciate the statement:
"The only John Barrow I know of is the congressman from Georgia, and
to
quote the words of a USA congressman as the background for whatever
seems to be a rather unimpressive thing anywhere, leave alone in
sci.math."
Isn>t it more likely that the author is John D. Barrow
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow),
the English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician that
has authored or co-authored the 86 math and physics books listed at
amazon.com?
A quick internet search reveals that John Barrow>s statement, which
you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
Russell:http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
properly and that your protest is pure ignorance.
***********************************************************
No. That tells that YOU didn>t credit the source proprly.
Don>t be an ignoramus.
I still think that assumed definition of religion is a rather
simplistic one,
Your non-mathematical thinking is irrelevant. According to David
Hilbert>s philosophy of physics [...]
[/quote]
Holy hell. Do you ever shut up about Hilbert? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 2:05 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 9:13 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:59 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:26 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:08 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:00 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee
Hehe...that one was funny, because by now you should know that I am a
mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
mathematician, remember?
Who can believe that you are a mathematician?
I quoted a valid application of Godel>s theorem:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." -- John Barrow
You completely missed the relevance of that quote as if you never
heard of Godel>s theorem. Instead, you whine about the author in an
idiotic way and prove that you don>t appreciate the statement:
"The only John Barrow I know of is the congressman from Georgia, and
to
quote the words of a USA congressman as the background for whatever
seems to be a rather unimpressive thing anywhere, leave alone in
sci.math."
Isn>t it more likely that the author is John D. Barrow
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow),
the English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician that
has authored or co-authored the 86 math and physics books listed at
amazon.com?
A quick internet search reveals that John Barrow>s statement, which
you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
Russell:http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
properly and that your protest is pure ignorance.
***********************************************************
No. That tells that YOU didn>t credit the source proprly.
Don>t be an ignoramus.
I still think that assumed definition of religion is a rather
simplistic one,
Your non-mathematical thinking is irrelevant. According to David
Hilbert>s philosophy of physics [...]
Holy hell. Do you ever shut up about Hilbert?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Holey honesty, it>s Eric |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
[/quote]
Well, this is rich.
Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
to his notion of physical philosophy. Then he cites a mathematician to
back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
models.
Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn>t know what he>s talking
about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.
I think Shubee should proceed directly to the philosophy of physics
according to angels, and find an angel who is willing to testify that
Shubee>s ideas about both physics and mathematics are correct. Of
course, it will take some arrangement for Shubee and the appropriate
angel to meet.
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 2:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Well, this is rich.
Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
to his notion of physical philosophy. Then he cites a mathematician to
back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
models.
Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn>t know what he>s talking
about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.
I think Shubee should proceed directly to the philosophy of physics
according to angels, and find an angel who is willing to testify that
Shubee>s ideas about both physics and mathematics are correct. Of
course, it will take some arrangement for Shubee and the appropriate
angel to meet.
PD
[/quote]
That is one angle of looking at it. Judging from your prior angles,
it is not reliable. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Benj
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 3, 12:30 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
[quote]Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
Atheism is a religion.
=============================
Is zero positive or negative, Shubert?
It>s not positive so it must be negative, right?
Amoral is the belief that there are no mores.
Amorality is a religion.
Shubert would not know the difference between
amoral and immoral.
[/quote]
Andro is right about atheists being amoral. To be immoral would mean
that one would be going directly against the mores as defined by some
religion. If one is an a-theist, it means that they do not believe in
ANY of the morality of ANY religion. This means that all acts are
equally "moral" to them. They cannot do "evil" or be "unethical"
because they do not believe that mores are anything more than a fairy
tale. All acts no matter how considered to be vile by other religions
are "neutral" to them. Thus any "punishment" for "immorality" has to
be imposed upon them by others which is one reason they seek to
"smash" all other religions.
Now Andro is using the cute argument of "zero" to say that atheism
isn>t a religion. On the mathematical level it makes sense, in that
mathematics is "provably" BOTH a religion and not a religion at the
same time so it has been said.
But mathematics doesn>t change the meaning of the English language,
does it? Sure it may define it>s own terms in ways that English does
not, but that is ONLY WITHIN it>s own system. Hence mathematical terms
cannot be used to define itself. It simply begs the question.
So if we examine the meaning of atheism OUTSIDE of the religion of
mathematics, [I suggest Websters here] we find it means: 1a. a
disbelief in the existence of Deity. 1b. the doctrine that there is no
Deity. 2. Ungodlyness, Wickedness.
So all the strained assertions that atheism has nothing to do with
denying God are obviously BS. And there is a reason for this. Leftists
have atheism as part of their doctrine. They strongly wish to make
Atheism the state religion of any country they subvert. But since in
America, a state religion is forbidden by law, they use Andro>s clever
argument about "no religion" not being a religion itself, to try to
ban all other religions and cleverly insert atheism as the state
religion. [as was the de facto case in the former USSR] They use the
somewhat bogus argument of "separation of church and state" to pull
this off.
All of these arguments are lies and a direct attack upon "freedom of
religion" which says that the state may NOT implement a state religion
be it atheism or any other and that each PERSON should be free to
practice THEIR religion as they see fit. So the bottom line is that
atheists are legally free to go around telling each other there is no
God and they are not subject to any morality thereby, but they are not
permitted to tell any other religion that they may not practice their
beliefs even if they work in government! Note that this does NOT mean
that the state may support any particular religion (as it now does
quite often in regard to atheism) unless it also supports all
religions in the same manner.
While the English definition of Atheism as "wickedness" clearly COULD
be true, it obviously isn>t ALWAYS true as atheists are also by
definition amoral. But the fact that atheism is a system of belief
about one or more deities, is clearly a truth that makes it a
religion. [They all hold the unprovable believe that none of them
exist] Here Andro, lets return to Webster>s again [Yeah I know you are
a stranger to it>s pages since it>s so much more convenient to make up
your own definitions of words] Religion: "4. a cause, principle, or
system of belief, held to ardor and faith." If that doesn>t describe
the atheists hanging here you included, then we might as well throw
the dictionary out and let you and your liberal pals define for us
what words mean at any given moment.
And you are still a moron Andro, but it>s OK because it>s the basis of
your faith! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human |
|
|
On Oct 6, 4:30 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]
[/quote]
No religion or non-religion can claim a monopoly on morality. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
