How true?
Ivan Grozny
absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Nomen Publicus
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
I'm sure that mathematicians would be somewhat surprised at that.
1+1=2 every time, everywhere.
--
People who need govenment to enforce their religion must not have much
faith in the power of its message.
1034 gods I don't believe in: http://anya.sighup.org.uk/gods.html
Andres64
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True
Wrong. An atheist is simply someone that doesn't believe in god(s).
That it a fact. Get over it.
Ivan Grozny
wrote:
No. Two is only mathematically defined as the successor of one in the
closed system of logcal arithmetic. That may not apply in reality over
all time and everywhere.
Ivan Grozny
Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
Robibnikoff
"Ivan Grozny" <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c807222-3239-46b4...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Whatever, fuckface. Say hi to the other assholes in my killfile.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Richo
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Well that would rather depend on what they say - now wouldnt it?
Mark.
Ivan Grozny
> "Ivan Grozny" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Say hello to the inmates of your local loonybin.
Ivan Grozny
Would it?
Richo
Of course.
If an atheist said "I am 47 years old" then he could prove that by
showing you his birth certificate for example.
If A believer in Christ says "Jesus is God" he cant prove it.
See now?
Now what is it do you think atheists need to prove and why.
Mark.
Dag Yo
woden
@buffy.sighup.org.uk:
> In alt.agnosticism Ivan Grozny <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
> I'm sure that mathematicians would be somewhat surprised at that.
> 1+1=2 every time, everywhere.
>
>
Not necessarily. Sometimes 1+1=10
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Reverend Dave
534893...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
That's a pretty vague statement. Perhaps you should first establish what
atheists claim to be "True".
--
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
- Albert Einstein
http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/
L.Roberts
Prove that I don't believe? Would you accept the results of a
polygraph? While we're at it, you take one to prove that you do
believe.
L.Roberts
aa # 2258
Stan-O
What a fucking moron! An atheist says, "I want proof" and they are
supposed to prove that is a true statement.
Stan-O
>Nomen Publicus <npub...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote in news:aq9rs5-7fc.ln1
>@buffy.sighup.org.uk:
>
>> In alt.agnosticism Ivan Grozny <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>>> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> I'm sure that mathematicians would be somewhat surprised at that.
>> 1+1=2 every time, everywhere.
>>
>>
>
>Not necessarily. Sometimes 1+1=10
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand
binary and those who don't.
Andres64
Prove that I don't believe?
Nomen Publicus
> Nomen Publicus <npub...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote in news:aq9rs5-7fc.ln1
> @buffy.sighup.org.uk:
>
>> In alt.agnosticism Ivan Grozny <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>>> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> I'm sure that mathematicians would be somewhat surprised at that.
>> 1+1=2 every time, everywhere.
>>
>>
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes 1+1=10
you are confusing things with the representation of things ;-)
--
Mel Gibson isn't known for being faithful to the original source.
His remake of The Life of Brian is rubbish. -- Michael C
Douglas Berry
<cjdro...@gmail.com> carved the following into the hard stone of
alt.atheism
>Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
"I don't believe in gods." That's what atheism is, dimfuck.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Michelle Malkin
"Ivan Grozny" <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c807222-3239-46b4...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
Just as theists are unable to provide evidence that their 'God' exists
and just as agnostics sit on the fence.
Brian E. Clark
b333dd...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ivan
Grozny said...
> > Wrong. An atheist is simply someone that doesn't believe in god(s).
> > That it a fact. Get over it.
>
> Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
Come back when you've grown up enough intellectually
to recognize such questions as not just childish but
uninteresting.
Come back when you've grown up enough emotionally to
have no need for your flippant little games any
longer.
Come back when you've grown up enough socially to ask
questions without alienating people.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 10:04, Nomen Publicus <npubli...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
Mathematics is a tool. It is invented. It does not exist independently
of those who use it. Your claim that it may not apply in reality over
all time and everywhere is utterly meaningless.
Uncle Vic
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
>
Assuming, of course, "anyone" in your context is a Christian, who believes
1+1+1=1.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Then you're being very sloppy in your terminology. "1+1=2", as
presented, is a mathematical proposition, following mathematical rules,
which are defined particular ways - meaning they're the same each and
every time.
If you meant "If you put one rabbit and one rabbit together in a cage,
the result will be 'at least five rabbits'" then you're no longer
limiting the scope to mathematics, in which case you should not be
presenting the statement as a mathematical proposition.
We can't help your sloppy terminology, but that doesn't make your case
for you, either.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:15:08 -0700, Ivan Grozny wrote:
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True
And what, exactly, are atheists saying is capital-t-true?
Andy W
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Are you suggesting that this would apply only to atheists? Why would
that be?
Andy
Syd M.
Prove what?
That we don't believe in your god? We DON'T.
Deal.
PDW
Robibnikoff
"Brian E. Clark" <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.236533ec3...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Obviously that's the last we'll be seeing of this Ivan clown ;)
Ivan Grozny
It was you who were claiming that your standpoint and its essence were
facts, but so far I have not seen any kind of proof from you which
would convince me of the truth of these "facts". Yep, prove you don't
believe! Prove it absolutely.
Ivan Grozny
There's no absolute guarantee that it was his birth certificate, is
there? What with identity theft nowadays, no one can trust anything,
can they?
Ivan Grozny
I never said I believed.
Syd M.
> "Brian E. Clark" <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in messagenews:MPG.236533ec3...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <c76da023-34c5-46fc-bb05-
> Grozny said...
>
> > > Wrong. An atheist is simply someone that doesn't believe in god(s).
> > > That it a fact. Get over it.
>
> > Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
>
> <Come back when you've grown up enough intellectually
> <to recognize such questions as not just childish but
>
> >uninteresting.
>
> <Come back when you've grown up enough emotionally to
>
> >have no need for your flippant little games any
> >longer.
>
> >Come back when you've grown up enough socially to ask
> >questions without alienating people.
>
> Obviously that's the last we'll be seeing of this Ivan clown ;)
We can only hope...
PDW
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On 19 Oct, 16:32, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 5:51 am, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 19 Oct, 10:31, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 19, 2:15 am, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True
>>
>> > > Wrong. An atheist is simply someone that doesn't believe in
>> > > god(s). That it a fact. Get over it.
>>
>> > Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
>>
>> Prove that I don't believe?
>
> It was you who were claiming that your standpoint and its essence were
> facts
He did not claim his standpoint and its essence were fact; he claimed
that an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in gods.
>, but so far I have not seen any kind of proof from you which would
> convince me of the truth of these "facts". Yep, prove you don't believe!
> Prove it absolutely.
There are literally thousands of gods claimed to exist, or claimed to
have existed - how many of those do *you* believe in? I'm guessing at
most one. Out of all those thousands, you disbelieve in virtually all of
them. Thus you're quite well aware of the processes of disbelief and the
reality of people disbelieving; all that's left is for him to add _one_
extra name to a list of thousands to qualify.
You yourself set the stage, though; by failure to believe in thousands of
gods, your own actions demonstrate that disbelief is a purely mundane
thing, not needing any particularly significant support - your word that
you don't believe in Ra or Odin or Bubu of the Jungle is sufficient.
Well guess what? His statement that he simply adds one more name to the
long list of gods you each don't believe in is an equally trivial claim,
requiring no more evidence than you offer for your failure to believe all
those other gods.
Which, by the way, he gave you - his statement to that effect. Which,
one might point out, is more than _you_ have given as support for your
disbelief in all those other gods.
His win - by the standards _you_ set by failing to believe in every
single god concept which has ever been discussed.
If you won't even apply your own standards, why have any at all - just
believe anything and everything you're told.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:59:20 -0700, Richo wrote:
> On Oct 19, 9:26 pm, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Well that would rather depend on what they say - now wouldnt it?
>>
>> > Mark.
>>
>> Would it?
>
> Of course.
> If an atheist said "I am 47 years old" then he could prove that by
> showing you his birth certificate for example.
Actually, that wouldn't suffice. Many moons ago, I had an offer from
someone in Human Resources (i.e. the government) to provide me with an
altered set of papers saying I was somewhat older than I was. Special
case, details are irrelevant. Point is, this sort of thing would result
in birth certificates which state a birth date which is false to fact.
Presumably the same sort of thing would/could occur for folks in witness
protection and other similar situations, meaning there are possibly many
for whom a birth certificate only proves that the date printed on it is
printed on it - not that they were, in fact, born on the date recorded
thereon.
What it would do, however, is qualify as sufficient evidence to accept
the document as *probably* true, barring some particular and compelling
reason to think otherwise. Or, in short, it is an ordinary claim, backed
by the ordinary evidence of showing the birth certificate.
> If A believer in Christ
> says "Jesus is God" he cant prove it.
He can't even, apparently, show any actual evidence of it; the best they
seem able to come up with is an old book. If we took that as sufficient,
we should all be knee-deep in hobbits, thanks to Tolkien.
> See now?
>
> Now what is it do you think atheists need to prove and why.
This part he seems particularly unclear on.
G-Ride
news:5c807222-3239-46b4...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
Atheists don't have anything to prove. We simply don't believe in any gods.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
Andres64
So you think I'm lying, that I actually believe? What would you
accept as proof?
L.Roberts
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not ever, in your whole life, in regards to anything? I don't believe
you.
Ivan Grozny
> In article <c76da023-34c5-46fc-bb05-
> b333dd649...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ivan
Good Heavens! Have I stepped into some George Orwell novel? The
"Ministry of Correct Thinking" seems to be alive and well, watching
over us all.
Your attitude is far more alienating. Your attitude is downright
dangerous.
Ivan Grozny
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
>
> >Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
>
> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
And saying that "I don't believe in God or gods" is no evidence for
the proof of whether God or gods exist or not. It is simply an
opinion, and nothing more.
Ivan Grozny
>
> >Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
>
> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
But one plus one equals two is NOT universally True in all conceivable
mathematical systems. In those systems in which it is thought it might
be True, one finds that it is not absolutely True by proof, but only
by definition, which I would call a rather weak, and not convincing
absolute universal proof.
Ivan Grozny
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> > absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
> Assuming, of course, "anyone" in your context is a Christian, who believes
> 1+1+1=1.
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Separator of Church and Reason.
> Convicted by Earthquack.
What has Christianity got to do with the debate?
Ivan Grozny
>
> - Show quoted text -
Get a life. Atheists seem to want to spend their life time purging
their minds of a belief in gods. It's as if they had no trust in
themselves, and wake up with the mantra every morning, open the window
and shout out into the streets for all to hear:
" I don't believe in God!"
The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among the
most intolerant. Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
Uncle Vic
> On 19 Oct, 18:54, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>> > absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> Assuming, of course, "anyone" in your context is a Christian, who
>> believes 1+1+1=1.
>
> What has Christianity got to do with the debate?
>
>
>
What debate?
Ivan Grozny
>
> >Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
>
> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
Mathematical Truth is not identically the same as Scientific Truth.
Mathematicians are not Scientists.
Evidence is not properly a mathematical concept. Mathematical Proof is
not the same as Scientific Proof.
I am under no impression whatsoever that anyone has ever found any
evidence for the existence of any god or gods. But that is not what I
was saying.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
There is no evidence that any gods exist. Why would you believe in any
of them when there is no evidence for them?
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? Why not? They have every
bit as much evidence for them as any gods.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 18:09, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
>> <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
>>
>> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
>> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
>
>But one plus one equals two is NOT universally True in all conceivable
>mathematical systems.
So what? Not only did I note that, but the nature of mathematics is that
it depends on definitions.
>In those systems in which it is thought it might
>be True, one finds that it is not absolutely True by proof, but only
>by definition, which I would call a rather weak, and not convincing
>absolute universal proof.
It's mathematics. There's never an absolute universal proof because
mathematics works within the mathematical system being used. The entire
proposition that there could or must be a universal is preposterous to
anyone familiar with mathematics.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 18:09, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
>> <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
>>
>> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
>> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
>
>Mathematical Truth is not identically the same as Scientific Truth.
>Mathematicians are not Scientists.
No kidding. You were the one who erroneously equated the two.
>Evidence is not properly a mathematical concept. Mathematical Proof is
>not the same as Scientific Proof.
There are no scientific proofs.
>I am under no impression whatsoever that anyone has ever found any
>evidence for the existence of any god or gods. But that is not what I
>was saying.
Really?
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 15:14, "L.Roberts" <ozzcat2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My experience is that only believers make the categorical mistakes that
you have been making. I suppose it is possible for an unbeliever to make
all of the mistakes that theists make because the unbeliever has never
been taught to think clearly or logically.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 16:32, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
Your question shows an absurd misunderstanding of reality.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 21:23, Kelsey Bjarnason <kels...@lgisp.net> wrote:
How is it rude to say that I don't believe in gods? What is intolerant
in asking theists to offer evidence to back up their theistic claims?
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 18:09, Brian E. Clark <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
Asking you to think clearly and logically is dangerous? You truly are a
acting like a mindless theistic zombie. Stop acting like a fool.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 18:54, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
It's the most popular of the theistic claims. We also have experience
that the theists who decide to come here to insult atheists are
overwhelmingly Christian or members of related cults like the Watchtower
Society.
DanielSan
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
Okay. In what circumstance does 1+1=2 not true?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************
Richo
Nope.
So what?
Atheism is NOT
(a) Claiming that you can prove that God doesnt exist.
(b) Claiming to know anything with absolute certainty.
Atheism is simply NOT believing in God or gods.
Mark.
DanielSan
>>
>>> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True
>> That it a fact. Get over it.
>
> Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
I can. Here, are you ready to be impressed? Well, here it is:
*claps hands*bows head*concentrates hard*then intones*
"I do not believe in god(s)."
Whew. Now that was difficult.
DanielSan
> Nomen Publicus <npub...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote in news:aq9rs5-7fc.ln1
> @buffy.sighup.org.uk:
>
>> In alt.agnosticism Ivan Grozny <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>>> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>> 1+1=2 every time, everywhere.
>>
>>
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes 1+1=10
10 is binary for 2.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:03:48 -0700, Ivan Grozny wrote:
> Get a life.
ROFL! You get your pet nonsense tossed back at you, so instead of
admitting you bolloxed the deal, you're reduced to "Get a life"? That's
priceless.
Got news for you, spanky, I have a life. Which happens to include a
lovely little lady I just married, with whom I spend endless hours
laughing and smiling and enjoying even the little things life has for us.
I have all the life I need, thank you very much, and more besides. You
should be so lucky.
> Atheists seem to want to spend their life time purging their
> minds of a belief in gods.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. I myself, for example, was raised as
a sceptic, not just in religion but generally: don't buy it just because
someone says so, check the evidence. There is no belief in gods to
purge; this is true of many atheists. For many more, there may well have
been a pre-existing belief in gods, but that's actually pretty trivially
discarded by anyone capable of being honest with themselves and capable
of critical thinking.
Or, in short, I suspect there are damned few atheists who are in a
position of trying to purge god beliefs; while there may be a few here
and there, it just doesn't seem to be applicable to them as a group.
Nice try, though.
> It's as if they had no trust in themselves,
> and wake up with the mantra every morning, open the window and shout out
> into the streets for all to hear:
>
> " I don't believe in God!"
Why would an atheist say such a stupid thing? If they were going to say
anything, it would be "I don't believe in gods." According to your
formulation, a die-hard believer in Odin would qualify as an atheist;
this is obviously absurd.
Of course, we are in fact called upon to make such statements fairly
regularly, usually by the more idiotic theists who seem to think that
secretly, deep-down, everyone, everywhere, really, really does actually
believe in whatever the theist's pet god is. These people seem
constitutionally unable to grasp that we prefer to *think* rather than
*believe*. Why this is so, I don't know, but it does lead, inevitably,
to them being told, quite bluntly, "Sorry, idiot, but whatever
shortcomings you have in terms of grasping this, the reality is both
clear and simple: we do not believe in gods."
> The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
"The rest of us", then, are those who are at least in part to blame for
the ongoing march of religion into politics, into education, even into
law. Maybe *you* would be happy to wake up one day and find out that
your children are *required* to undergo daily indoctrination in some
religious text, or that *you* are required to adhere to a bronze-age code
of rules, all because "the rest of us simply get on with life" and let
the godders usurp the laws of the land.
Maybe that all sounds good to you. You might ask how you'd feel if it
happened, but it was *the other guy's religion* that won the day. You're
a Christian? How'd you feel if Islam became a mandatory state-imposed
religion? You're a Muslim? How'd you feel if it were Wicca being
imposed?
Chances are you wouldn't like it. Guess what - you just joined our
side. We wouldn't like it either, having someone else's religion imposed
upon us. But, hey, don't get worked up about it or anything, just go
have a cup of tea, bury your head in the sand and pretend it isn't
happening, right?
> Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among the
> most intolerant. Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
Yes, we *are* frequently rude - and why wouldn't we be? Quick: count the
number of times I have initiated posts into, oh, alt.christian.religion.
No, I'll save you the trouble: the count is zero. Oh, you'll find my
name in there, but as cross-posts of threads created by others, never as
an original poster.
Why is that? Simple: I see no need to take my views in there. I have a
group where my views are topical, and that is here. I don't pee in their
soup, they have no reason to complain.
On the other hand, we have an endless stream of god-addled fuckwits who
persist in pouring their drivel into our group, where it is not topical,
not wanted. They *are* peeing in our soup, and we don't like it. If
they're particularly nice sorts, we'll let them know gently. If they are
terminal fuckwits, or persist in doing it - or both - we let them have
it, both barrels. And why not? This is *our* place, not theirs, and
their crap is not wanted. They *have* a place to spew their crap, let
them spew it there, not here.
Why *anyone* would be clueless enough to expect anything *but* hostility
and rudeness in the face of that sort of ongoing behaviour isn't clear,
but they do - and apparently you do, too. Just how polite are you to
people who incessantly barge into your place - your living room, your
social club, whatever - to disrupt your discussions, to bring in subjects
which aren't wanted, to spew noxious crud which is not merely unwelcome,
but actively unwanted? You're telling me that when this happens, day in
and day out, year in and year out, your response to the same bonehead
doing the same boneheaded thing yet again is going to be "Pretty please,
good sir, could you kindly take that elsewhere"? While he ignores you
and continues to spew?
Bullshit, you'd be calling the cops or going for your baseball bat.
Well, in here, we have neither cops nor bats. What we do have is
tireless devotion to smashing their bullshit down, time and time again,
not in the hopes *they* will ever change, but in hopes that others will
get the message - these pricks are unwelcome, they're unwanted, they're
spewing nothing but garbage, but they are unrelenting. Like cockroaches,
you have to keep stomping them until they finally go away to spread their
filth somewhere else, hopefully in their own venues this time.
And intolerant? What the flying fuck have you been reading? It
certainly can't be what's posted here. Here's a hint, since you're
apparently oblivious to the real world: it's not _our side_ which keeps
posting about how women, gays, lesbians, transgendered and the like need
to be discriminated against, prevented from having equal rights,
prevented from having access to medical procedures and so forth. It is
not _our side_ which whines about "free speech" when what is being
curtailed is not free speech, but *hate speech*, a different animal
entirely - and as a consequence also demonstrating just how foul they
really are, by actually defending hate speech and acting as if it were
some sort of moral imperative.
No, _our side_ argues incessantly for tolerance, for equality. We don't
even want those religions eradicated - those folks are welcome to believe
as they will, worship as they will, we don't care. They have the
_freedom_ to believe that way, and we, as a whole, _support_ that right.
What we do not support, what we actively fight, is the attempts by their
side to deny, and in some cases actually remove, rights and freedoms from
others - the very hallmark of the intolerance you're claiming our side
displays.
You commit a common but fundamental fallacy. You confuse commitment and
zeal for intolerance, enthusiasm for fundamentalism. They are not the
same thing at all. When someone's intolerance seeks to remove or deny
rights, it is *not* intolerance to stand firm and say "Not going to
happen". It is commitment to tolerance, to equality, to a basic
fundamental sense of fairness which drives us, and yes, we can certainly
be zealous in defending that. The alternative is to do as you suggest,
to roll over, play dead and "go have some tea" while those seeking to
usurp our rights and freedoms roll on unchecked.
Intolerant? No, we're not intolerant. Quite the opposite. What we are,
however, is adamant: no more. You bastards have held sway quite long
enough, no more. You bastards have denied and taken away basic rights:
no more. You bastards have imposed your bronze-age rules on those
unwilling and unwanting for too long: no more. You've had your day, it
is done. We will ring in the age of reason by any means possible, and as
for your superstitious nonsense, if you want to believe it, you go right
ahead, but as for inflicting it upon the rest of us: no more.
Richo
> Ivan Grozny wrote:
> > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> > absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
> Okay. In what circumstance does 1+1=2 not true?
>
There is a (possibly dishonest) game you can play with symbols vs what
they represent.
At one level "1+1=2" is just a symbol string.
You can assign any meaning you like to the symbols and most of those
assignments make the string meaningless.
Some of those re-assignments are meaningful and even useful in
abstract mathematics and logic
For example you can assign the "+" symbol to represent multiplication
- in which case 1 + 1 = 2 is not a true statement.
Mark.
DanielSan
A well-educated opinion backed up by a mountain of evidence.
DanielSan
But then, 1-1=2 if you assert that the "-" symbol represents addition.
Either way, when you add 1 to 1, it is ALWAYS 2.
Smiler
> On 19 Oct, 18:09, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
>> <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>>> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for
>> gods?
>>
>> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
>> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
>
> But one plus one equals two is NOT universally True in all conceivable
> mathematical systems.
What mathematical systems would those be?
How do those systems 'work'?
Are you talking here about 'Christian Maths' where Pi = 3 and 24 hours =
365,000 (approx) days?
> In those systems in which it is thought it might
> be True, one finds that it is not absolutely True by proof, but only
> by definition, which I would call a rather weak, and not convincing
> absolute universal proof.
Duh. The definition of 2 *IS* 1+1.
How else can you define 2 from first principles?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Smiler
Exactly as much as atheism.
L.Roberts
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
>
> - Show quoted text -
My experience is that only a shithead with nothing real to say slings
the bull that you've been slinging.
ath...@home.com
>Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Well then, how is it that one plus one doesn't always equal two?
atheist@home#1554
Frank Mayhar
> minds of a belief in gods. It's as if they had no trust in themselves,
> and wake up with the mantra every morning, open the window and shout out
> into the streets for all to hear:
>
> " I don't believe in God!"
>
> The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
>
> Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among the
> most intolerant. Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
Pot, meet kettle.
You're a pig-ignorant little bigot. Kindly go fuck yourself sideways
with a rusty bandsaw.
*plonk*
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
Ivan Grozny
> >Atheists can no more prove what they say isTruethan anyone can
> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is alwaystrue.
>
> Well then, how is it that one plus one doesn't always equal two?
>
> atheist@home#1554
The colour Red might be defined as the colour of blood. But what about
the clour-blind person who slaughters a beast which might have Green
blood?
Statements of "Truth" by definition are no way as strong or "True" as
statements whic have been proved. There are systems where one plus one
doesn't always equal two. Why shouldn't they exist?
ath...@home.com
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct, 04:20, athe...@home.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
>>
>> <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Atheists can no more prove what they say isTruethan anyone can
>> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is alwaystrue.
>>
>> Well then, how is it that one plus one doesn't always equal two?
>>
>> atheist@home#1554
>
>The colour Red might be defined as the colour of blood. But what about
>the clour-blind person who slaughters a beast which might have Green
>blood?
Wouldn't matter.
The definition is faulty as regards reality.
Blood is neither red nor green nor any other color.
Color is an internal experience, an illusion that our eyes and brains
together have evolved to experience.
Color does not in fact exist in the external world.
The definition serves a useful purpose but is inaccurate nonetheless.
But that is not math, just silly nonsense and does not answer the
question.
>Statements of "Truth" by definition are no way as strong or "True" as
>statements whic have been proved.
Lol!
This won't be any fun if you can't do better than that.
>There are systems where one plus one
>doesn't always equal two.
You have already suggested that and I asked how that could be.
You simply repeated the claim rather than answering the question.
>Why shouldn't they exist?
You do not understand the function of math or you wouldn't ask the
question.
If you wanted to ask if the universe didn't contain any life,
especially life with advanced intelligence, would one and one equal
two, that might have been fun.
But you really should give this up.
That old game "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
with bullshit" might work on your friends but it won't work here.
It's been real.
Ciao.
atheist@home#1554
Ivan Grozny
> "Ivan Grozny" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5c807222-3239-46b4...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> > absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
>
> --
> Aloha, G-Ride
>
> The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
The Mantra of the Atheists
"I/We don't believe in any gods."
This is not a proper scientific statement. It cannot properly be
validated.
Its truth cannot be proven or otherwise
It has no truth or existence beyond the utterer. How do I know that
they are not Cretan?
It is not very useful.
Ivan Grozny
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:54:06 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
Isn't it dangerous to jump to conclusions before you have assessed ALL
the evidence? I never claimed any allegiance to or membership of any
of these organisations you named.
Ivan Grozny
> In article <c76da023-34c5-46fc-bb05-
> b333dd649...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ivan
> Grozny said...
>
> > > That it a fact. Get over it.
>
> > Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
>
> to recognize such questions as not just childish but
> uninteresting.
>
> Come back when you've grown up enough emotionally to
> have no need for your flippant little games any
> longer.
>
> Come back when you've grown up enough socially to ask
> questions without alienating people.
>
> --
> -----------
> Brian E. Clark
Were you badly abused as a child?
Andres64
> On Oct 19, 2:56 pm, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Oct, 16:32, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 5:51 am, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 Oct, 10:31, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True
>
> > > > > That it a fact. Get over it.
>
> > > > Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
>
>
> > would convince me of the truth of these "facts". Yep, prove you don't
> > believe! Prove it absolutely.
>
> accept as proof?
Still waiting Ivan
Brian E. Clark
4ax.com>, Free Lunch said...
> >It was you who were claiming that your standpoint and its essence were
> >facts, but so far I have not seen any kind of proof from you which
> >would convince me of the truth of these "facts". Yep, prove you don't
> >believe! Prove it absolutely.
>
> Your question shows an absurd misunderstanding of reality.
More to the point, it shows a solipsist's (usually
meaning, a beginner's) grasp of epistemology. Just as
junior base-ballers strike out often, many cub
philosophers seem to go through solipsism and some
form of philosophical nihilism before their minds
begin to hit the ball with any consistency, so to
speak. (Note Ivan's platitudinous chattering about
mathematical systems, another sign of intellectual
adolescence.)
Such people are often unendurably snide during their
apprenticeship, unfortunately for the rest of us.
Syd M.
> On 19 Oct, 18:09, Brian E. Clark <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <c76da023-34c5-46fc-bb05-
> > b333dd649...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ivan
> > Grozny said...
>
> > > > That it a fact. Get over it.
>
> > > Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
>
> > to recognize such questions as not just childish but
> > uninteresting.
>
> > Come back when you've grown up enough emotionally to
> > have no need for your flippant little games any
> > longer.
>
> > Come back when you've grown up enough socially to ask
> > questions without alienating people.
>
> > -----------
> > Brian E. Clark
>
> "Ministry of Correct Thinking" seems to be alive and well, watching
> over us all.
>
> Your attitude is far more alienating. Your attitude is downright
> dangerous.
No.
PDW
Syd M.
> On 19 Oct, 21:23, Kelsey Bjarnason <kels...@lgisp.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > On 19 Oct, 16:32, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 19, 5:51 am, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On 19 Oct, 10:31, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Oct 19, 2:15 am, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True
>
> > >> > > god(s). That it a fact. Get over it.
>
> > >> > Can you prove that fact? Can you really prove it?
>
>
>
> > He did not claim his standpoint and its essence were fact; he claimed
> > that an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in gods.
>
> > > convince me of the truth of these "facts". Yep, prove you don't believe!
> > > Prove it absolutely.
>
> > have existed - how many of those do *you* believe in? I'm guessing at
> > most one. Out of all those thousands, you disbelieve in virtually all of
> > them. Thus you're quite well aware of the processes of disbelief and the
> > reality of people disbelieving; all that's left is for him to add _one_
> > extra name to a list of thousands to qualify.
>
> > You yourself set the stage, though; by failure to believe in thousands of
> > gods, your own actions demonstrate that disbelief is a purely mundane
> > thing, not needing any particularly significant support - your word that
> > you don't believe in Ra or Odin or Bubu of the Jungle is sufficient.
>
> > Well guess what? His statement that he simply adds one more name to the
> > long list of gods you each don't believe in is an equally trivial claim,
> > requiring no more evidence than you offer for your failure to believe all
> > those other gods.
>
> > Which, by the way, he gave you - his statement to that effect. Which,
> > one might point out, is more than _you_ have given as support for your
> > disbelief in all those other gods.
>
> > His win - by the standards _you_ set by failing to believe in every
> > single god concept which has ever been discussed.
>
> > If you won't even apply your own standards, why have any at all - just
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> their minds of a belief in gods.
You are confusing 'arguing with theists who want to impose their crap
on us' with 'trying to purge ourselves of a belief'.
If you don't want to produce proof, keep your beliefs to yourself,
sunshine.
>
> " I don't believe in God!"
>
> The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
>
> Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among the
> most intolerant. Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
Some of the rudest people seem to be theists and the most intolerant.
Their overall attitude is downright disrespectful and rude, not to
mention dangerous.
PDW
Smiler
Nope. Were you?
Smiler
Nobody said you did, only that we have experienced their rudeness, which is
very similar to yours.
Free Lunch
<re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in alt.atheism:
The word sophomoric wasn't invented for no reason at all.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Then why are you acting like you do? Are you just mocking Christians
with your Poe attitude and irritating us because you are so young and
immature? Are you just entertaining yourself without regard to how
others respond?
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 19 Oct, 22:07, "G-Ride" <gride42nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Ivan Grozny" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5c807222-3239-46b4...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>> > absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> Atheists don't have anything to prove. We simply don't believe in any gods.
>>
>> --
>> Aloha, G-Ride
>>
>> The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
>
>The Mantra of the Atheists
>
>"I/We don't believe in any gods."
>
>This is not a proper scientific statement. It cannot properly be
>validated.
Claims about gods have never been validated. This, of course, has
nothing to do with science.
>Its truth cannot be proven or otherwise
>
>It has no truth or existence beyond the utterer. How do I know that
>they are not Cretan?
>
>It is not very useful.
Neither is religion.
Free Lunch
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Wow, you must have been the first person to ever engage in a late-night
bull session in a dormitory.
johac
<5c807222-3239-46b4...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Ivan Grozny <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Nothing more or less. Those who claim
the existence of a god or gods have something to prove. So where's your
proof?
--
John #1782
G-Ride
news:ea8f13a0-2fd8-4208...@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Oct, 22:07, "G-Ride" <gride42nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Ivan Grozny" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5c807222-3239-46b4...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>> > absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> Atheists don't have anything to prove. We simply don't believe in any
>> gods.
>>
>> --
>> Aloha, G-Ride
>>
>> The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
>
> The Mantra of the Atheists
>
> "I/We don't believe in any gods."
>
> This is not a proper scientific statement. It cannot properly be
> validated.
>
It is not meant to be a scientific statement. It is a statement of belief,
or more accurately, atheists' lack thereof.
> Its truth cannot be proven or otherwise
>
There is nothing to 'prove'. Atheists don't believe in any god(s). That's
all there is to it.
> It has no truth or existence beyond the utterer. How do I know that
> they are not Cretan?
>
> It is not very useful.
>
>
It is as useful as anything anyone ever tells you about themselves. It's
your problem that you apparently want atheism to mean something other than
it is, not mine.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:48:08 -0700, Ivan Grozny wrote:
>> >Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>> >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>
>> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
>>
>> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
>> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
>
> And saying that "I don't believe in God or gods" is no evidence for the
> proof of whether God or gods exist or not. It is simply an opinion, and
> nothing more.
No, it's a (presumably) factual statement about the presence or absence
of a belief.
You really need to learn to tell the difference between simple concepts.
"I don't believe in gods" and "There are no gods" are not the same
concept, and only one of them involves a claim which needs be supported.
Try again, sunshine.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:43:48 -0700, Ivan Grozny wrote:
>> >What has Christianity got to do with the debate?
>>
>> It's the most popular of the theistic claims. We also have experience
>> that the theists who decide to come here to insult atheists are
>> overwhelmingly Christian or members of related cults like the
>> Watchtower Society.
>
> Isn't it dangerous to jump to conclusions before you have assessed ALL
> the evidence? I never claimed any allegiance to or membership of any of
> these organisations you named.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we do not tend to assume
it is a hippopotamus.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:36:32 -0700, Ivan Grozny wrote:
> "I/We don't believe in any gods."
>
> This is not a proper scientific statement. It cannot properly be
> validated.
>
> Its truth cannot be proven or otherwise
Welcome to science, where we don't do proof.
You really should visit the real world sometime, it's an interesting
place.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On 20 Oct, 04:20, athe...@home.com wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Grozny
>
> > <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Atheists can no more prove what they say isTruethan anyone can
> > >absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is alwaystrue.
>
> > Well then, how is it that one plus one doesn't always equal two?
>
> > atheist@home#1554
>
> The colour Red might be defined as the colour of blood. But what about
> the clour-blind person who slaughters a beast which might have Green
> blood?
>
> Statements of "Truth" by definition are no way as strong or "True" as
> statements whic have been proved.
Agreed. That's exactly what I've been telling the morons who still
cling to the various versions of Abrahamic mythology for years.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Uncle Vic
>> Atheists don't have anything to prove. We simply don't believe in
>> any gods.
>
> The Mantra of the Atheists
>
> "I/We don't believe in any gods."
>
> This is not a proper scientific statement. It cannot properly be
> validated.
>
> Its truth cannot be proven or otherwise
>
> It has no truth or existence beyond the utterer. How do I know that
> they are not Cretan?
>
> It is not very useful.
I guess "We simply don't believe in any gods" wasn't simple enough for you.
IOW, you are uneducateable. Something is preventing information from
entering your train of thought. Maybe you have a virus. Been downloading
too much Jebus, maybe? I'd suggest wiping your hard drive and reinstalling
your basic programming. But it seems to me you prefer your hard drive
blank.
Jebus is a back-door trojan. It takes control of your system, and allows
others access to control it, while at the same time flashing mesmerizing
screen-savers at you, assuring you that all is well in la-la land.
Good luck with that.
Ivan Grozny
The statement "I don't believe in gods" isn't really a testable
scientific statement, and therefore meanlingless. It is something akin
to a soliptistic statement.
The existential questions "There are no gods" or " There are gods"
have far more meaning, and are theoretically testable.
pba...@worldonline.nl
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
If you are seriously doubting that one plus one equals two,
you should go see a therapist, I presume.
Normally I say things that are more doubtfull than that,
and I still say it with certainty.
For instance:
I claim that there is no allmighty god that wants me to believe in
him.
Love,
Peter van Velzen
October 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:12:36 -0700, Ivan Grozny wrote:
>> You really need to learn to tell the difference between simple
>> concepts. "I don't believe in gods" and "There are no gods" are not the
>> same concept, and only one of them involves a claim which needs be
>> supported.
>>
>> Try again, sunshine.
>
>
> The statement "I don't believe in gods" isn't really a testable
> scientific statement
Correct; it is a statement of belief.
>, and therefore meanlingless.
"I am hungry" is not meaningless, but is likewise not testable - all you
can test is willingness to eat.
You really need to learn how to deal with simple declarative statements
like that; most folks manage by the time they're about two.
DanielSan
> On 21 Oct, 17:26, Kelsey Bjarnason <kels...@lgisp.net> wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:48:08 -0700, IvanGroznywrote:
>>>>> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>>>>> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>>>> Are you under the impression that someone has found evidence for gods?
>>>> By the way, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true in all mathematical systems in
>>>> which it is true. You really don't understand much about mathematics.
>>> And saying that "I don't believe in God or gods" is no evidence for the
>>> proof of whether God or gods exist or not. It is simply an opinion, and
>>> nothing more.
>> No, it's a (presumably) factual statement about the presence or absence
>> of a belief.
>>
>> You really need to learn to tell the difference between simple concepts.
>> "I don't believe in gods" and "There are no gods" are not the same
>> concept, and only one of them involves a claim which needs be supported.
>>
>> Try again, sunshine.
>
>
> The statement "I don't believe in gods" isn't really a testable
> scientific statement, and therefore meanlingless.
"I like blue jeans" isn't really testable, either.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:50:28 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>> The statement "I don't believe in gods" isn't really a testable
>> scientific statement, and therefore meanlingless.
>
> "I like blue jeans" isn't really testable, either.
Therefore it can be discounted, therefore God exists - did I sufficiently
capture the nuances of his posts? :)
Ivan Grozny
> IvanGroznywrote:
prpensity for jeans.
I can't really measure your disbelief in gods.
ans
Ivan Grozny
wrote:
Good, your statement is essentially testable. We can set up an
experiment to count the existence or otherwise of a god. Not sure we
can measure your belief independently.
Smiler
Nor can we measure your belief in gods.
We know it's there, however, by the crap you spew.
DanielSan
Then you'll have to take me on my word, just as I have to take
"believers" on their word that they really do, truly, believe in their god.
Ivan Grozny
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then you agree with me
Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Why should I take you at your word?
DanielSan
>
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Can you define an instance where "one plus one" does NOT equal two?
>
> Why should I take you at your word?
>
Why should I take you at yours?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* It has been said that Jesus died on a Friday and *
* was resurrected on a Sunday. It is not so much *
* that Jesus died for our sins, as he had a very *
* bad weekend for them. *
******************************************************
Ivan Grozny
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I can't think of any, but that is not the point. Why should one
plus one always equal two over all time and in all places? I am not so
vain as to say that that should always be the case. I don't accept
absolutes of any kind.
It seems to me that Atheists have a streak of Absolutism in
themselves.