making fun of atheists

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 3:24:05 AM1/29/09

to

is it considered politically incorrect?

or cruel?

or out of line?

as a former atheist, i'd really like to know before i finish this
poem.

-$Zero...

Reality Check -- how many hours per day do you...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1483d297756de348

http://PollThis.com

boots

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:18:43 AM1/29/09

to

"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:

>making fun of atheists
>
>is it considered politically incorrect?
>
>or cruel?
>
>or out of line?
>
>as a former atheist, i'd really like to know before i finish this
>poem.

Be sure you know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
The people I used to think were agnostics are actually atheists, and
the people I used to think were atheists are actually anti-theists (a
term I'm not sure is in any dictionary). Basically the terminology is
so fucked-about and badly understood that it makes discussing the
subject nearly impossible. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write
a poem about something more practical? Breasts, maybe? Flowers have
been overdone imo.

--
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 7:20:39 AM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 4:18 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >making fun of atheists
>
> >is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> >or cruel?
>
> >or out of line?
>
> >as a former atheist, i'd really like to know before i finish this
> >poem.

Find words that rhymes with existentialism.

>
> Be sure you know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
> The people I used to think were agnostics are actually atheists, and
> the people I used to think were atheists are actually anti-theists (a
> term I'm not sure is in any dictionary). Basically the terminology is
> so fucked-about and badly understood that it makes discussing the
> subject nearly impossible. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write
> a poem about something more practical? Breasts, maybe? Flowers have
> been overdone imo.
>
> --
> sig text to prevent insertion of advertising

La Persistencia De La Mammoria

Surrealisitc globes of the eternal mother
Protrusions persuading, prominently displayed
Perpetually enticing innately ingrained
Indelible memory of Dolly and Dali
Persistently salivating Salvador

----
Mark

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 8:41:55 AM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 4:18 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >making fun of atheists
>
> >is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> >or cruel?
>
> >or out of line?
>
> >as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
> >before i finish this poem.
>
> Be sure you know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

that's simple.

atheists are way the fuck easier to make fun of.

and way easier to send off into la la land.

it's because of their undo faith in their silly belief.

i'm just amazed that so few in history have ever bothered to make fun
of them.

for instance, nobody ever made fun of _my_ atheism.

i guess they couldn't, for the most part, because most non-atheists
are either too gullible or too stupid to realize how easy it is to
mock the beliefs of atheists. therefore, it never catches on amongst
the non-atheists.

which in turn gives atheists an absurdly false sense of security, i
suppose.

it's a shame that more people don't focus on ridiculing the idiots.

they'd probably evolve much faster if they weren't given such a free
ride like that.

> The people I used to think were agnostics are actually atheists, and
> the people I used to think were atheists are actually anti-theists (a
> term I'm not sure is in any dictionary).

yeah, well, it's the vocal no-doubt-about-it atheists to which i'm
referring.

> Basically the terminology is so fucked-about and badly understood
> that it makes discussing the subject nearly impossible.

not really.

they identify themselves like Alan does.

atheists like him are so incredibly deluded that i feel almost guilty
picking on them.

so i guess i should leave the poor fools alone and start focusing on
the far more challenging agnostics.

making fun of _them_ would be a much better test of my enormous
talents.

it's just that the blowhard atheists are usually the most pompous and
idiotically arrogant, surpassed only by the Rush Limbaughs and Jerry
Falwells of the world. so there's such a sense of justice in making
their minds snap like i do.

> Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write
> a poem about something more practical?

yes.

> Breasts, maybe?

"ode to your boobs"

hm, maybe you've got a good idea there.

> Flowers have been overdone imo.

no way, dude.

-$Zero...

are you sure you really want to focus on this stupid question?
wouldn't you rather have the life jacket?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bc3c8eb13b850ff2

Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com

boots

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 8:58:47 AM1/29/09

to

"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 29, 4:18 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >making fun of atheists
>>
>> >is it considered politically incorrect?
>>
>> >or cruel?
>>
>> >or out of line?
>>
>> >as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
>> >before i finish this poem.
>>
>> Be sure you know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
>
>that's simple.
>
>atheists are way the fuck easier to make fun of.
>
>and way easier to send off into la la land.
>
>it's because of their undo faith in their silly belief.
>
>i'm just amazed that so few in history have ever bothered to make fun
>of them.
>
>for instance, nobody ever made fun of _my_ atheism.
>
>i guess they couldn't, for the most part, because most non-atheists
>are either too gullible or too stupid to realize how easy it is to
>mock the beliefs of atheists. therefore, it never catches on amongst
>the non-atheists.
>
>which in turn gives atheists an absurdly false sense of security, i
>suppose.
>
>it's a shame that more people don't focus on ridiculing the idiots.

Might it not be better, if you must ridicule something, to ridicule
their views?

>they'd probably evolve much faster if they weren't given such a free
>ride like that.
>
>> The people I used to think were agnostics are actually atheists, and
>> the people I used to think were atheists are actually anti-theists (a
>> term I'm not sure is in any dictionary).
>
>yeah, well, it's the vocal no-doubt-about-it atheists to which i'm
>referring.

Those folks are in the category I label anti-theists. Atheists are
undecided. Look it up, really. No point looking the fool for using
the wrong words when it's so easy to keep things straight. Then at
least when people argue with you, both parties know what they're
talking about. Mostly.

>> Basically the terminology is so fucked-about and badly understood
>> that it makes discussing the subject nearly impossible.
>
>not really.
>
>they identify themselves like Alan does.
>
>atheists like him are so incredibly deluded that i feel almost guilty
>picking on them.

I think Alan's views would be more correctly described by the term
agnostic than atheist, but I'm not privy to his real views, only his
comments on the subject which primarily amount to the ridicule of
theists' views.

>so i guess i should leave the poor fools alone and start focusing on
>the far more challenging agnostics.
>
>making fun of _them_ would be a much better test of my enormous
>talents.

"I know where you live and I've seen where you sleep" is a quote from
the movie Tommy Boy. Don't prattle about your "enormous talents"
amigo, either shut up about them or show me what you've done with
them.

>it's just that the blowhard atheists are usually the most pompous and
>idiotically arrogant, surpassed only by the Rush Limbaughs and Jerry
>Falwells of the world. so there's such a sense of justice in making
>their minds snap like i do.
>
>> Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write
>> a poem about something more practical?
>
>yes.
>
>> Breasts, maybe?
>
> "ode to your boobs"
>
>hm, maybe you've got a good idea there.
>
>> Flowers have been overdone imo.
>
>no way, dude.

Way. <g>

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 9:20:42 AM1/29/09

to

well yeah, but some people are in serious need of both.

> >they'd probably evolve much faster if they weren't given such a free
> >ride like that.
>
> >> The people I used to think were agnostics are actually atheists, and
> >> the people I used to think were atheists are actually anti-theists (a
> >> term I'm not sure is in any dictionary).
>
> >yeah, well, it's the vocal no-doubt-about-it atheists to which i'm
> >referring.
>
> Those folks are in the category I label anti-theists. Atheists are
> undecided.

not Alan, see below.

> Look it up, really. No point looking the fool for using
> the wrong words when it's so easy to keep things straight. Then at
> least when people argue with you, both parties know what they're
> talking about. Mostly.

as if.

"chain"

LOL.

> >> Basically the terminology is so fucked-about and badly understood
> >> that it makes discussing the subject nearly impossible.
>
> >not really.
>
> >they identify themselves like Alan does.
>
> >atheists like him are so incredibly deluded that i feel almost guilty
> >picking on them.
>
> I think Alan's views would be more correctly described by the term
> agnostic than atheist,

the dude has stated that he will not accept the proof he repeatedly
asks for (and gets, i might add, in the form of haggis servings).

anyone so inclined to ask for evidence that they refuse to accept
would have to qualify as "convinced", if you see what i mean.

> but I'm not privy to his real views,

there are no real atheists.

only posers.

and clowns.

Douglas Adams is one of the most intelligent and amusing atheist
writers ever, for instance.

> only his comments on the subject which primarily
> amount to the ridicule of theists' views.

he goes beyond that, IMO.

> >so i guess i should leave the poor fools alone and start focusing on
> >the far more challenging agnostics.
>
> >making fun of _them_ would be a much better test of my enormous
> >talents.
>
> "I know where you live and I've seen where you sleep" is a quote from
> the movie Tommy Boy. Don't prattle about your "enormous talents"
> amigo, either shut up about them or show me what you've done with
> them.

kinda hard to suck them in if i merely show instead of tell, ya know?

> >it's just that the blowhard atheists are usually the most pompous and
> >idiotically arrogant, surpassed only by the Rush Limbaughs and Jerry
> >Falwells of the world. so there's such a sense of justice in making
> >their minds snap like i do.
>
> >> Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write
> >> a poem about something more practical?
>
> >yes.
>
> >> Breasts, maybe?
>
> > "ode to your boobs"
>
> >hm, maybe you've got a good idea there.
>
> >> Flowers have been overdone imo.
>
> >no way, dude.
>
> Way. <g>

only if you're comparing them with boobs.

-$Zero...

i mean, typing one name into your newsreader
comment thinger and pressing the send button
would surely have to be preferable [by at least
some degree] to allowing yourself to continue
being considered a totally gullible fool sap, no?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/38fd17731d8851a8

Because there's not much of a market for truth
http://PureBullshitTimes.com

Ultraviolet

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 9:42:54 AM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 5:41 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<>

> i'm just amazed that so few in history have ever bothered to make fun
> of them.

That's not true at all. People have been put to death for not
professing belief -- I consider that an extreme form of mockery.

> for instance, nobody ever made fun of _my_ atheism.
>
> i guess they couldn't, for the most part, because most non-atheists
> are either too gullible or too stupid to realize how easy it is to
> mock the beliefs of atheists. therefore, it never catches on amongst
> the non-atheists.

You haven't been around much then. Atheists are roundly mocked all
over the intertubes.

--
UV

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 9:56:41 AM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 8:41 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i guess they couldn't, for the most part, because most non-atheists
> are either too gullible or too stupid to realize how easy it is to
> mock the beliefs of atheists. therefore, it never catches on amongst
> the non-atheists.
>

> -$Zero...

"Apologetics is not for proving the Word of God but simply
for providing a basis for faith."

"One should have a gentle and reverent spirit when using
apologetics":

"But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being
ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give
and account for the hope that is within you, *yet with
gentleness and reverence." (1 Peter 3:15 )

-Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vol 1
Historical evidences for the Christian Faith

----
Mark

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 10:09:13 AM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 9:42 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 5:41 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > i'm just amazed that so few in history have ever bothered to make fun
> > of them.
>
> That's not true at all. People have been put to death for not
> professing belief -- I consider that an extreme form of mockery.

i sure don't.

i consider that an extreme form of stupidity.

as a matter of fact, if anything, it mocks the believers.

> > for instance, nobody ever made fun of _my_ atheism.
>
> > i guess they couldn't, for the most part, because most non-atheists
> > are either too gullible or too stupid to realize how easy it is to
> > mock the beliefs of atheists. therefore, it never catches on amongst
> > the non-atheists.
>
> You haven't been around much then.

i've never seen any effective mockery of atheists.

i've seen idiotic clownish fumbling self-referencing desperation from
sadistic religious fuckheads who wouldn't know a sense of humor from a
lynching, but not anything approaching sublime satire which had at its
target atheism.

> Atheists are roundly mocked all over the intertubes.

got any good examples?

-$Zero...

[creator of the pope challenge, bows]
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/80f1b1da6c128f09

Ultraviolet

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 10:16:23 AM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 7:09 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:42 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

<>

> > Atheists are roundly mocked all over the intertubes.
>
> got any good examples?

No. I didn't realize you were looking for sublime, effective satire;
I've seen only stupid shit.

Have at it!

--
UV

Ultraviolet

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 10:22:19 AM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 5:58 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<>

> >yeah, well, it's the vocal no-doubt-about-it atheists to which i'm
> >referring.
>
> Those folks are in the category I label anti-theists. Atheists are
> undecided. Look it up, really. No point looking the fool for using
> the wrong words when it's so easy to keep things straight. Then at
> least when people argue with you, both parties know what they're
> talking about. Mostly.

I think you're confused, boots. Atheists do not believe in the
existence of a supreme being; agnostics say it's impossible to know if
there's one or not.

--
UV

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 10:22:17 AM1/29/09

to

hey!

> Have at it!

LOL

-$Zero...

i mean, typing one name into your newsreader
comment thinger and pressing the send button
would surely have to be preferable [by at least
some degree] to allowing yourself to continue
being considered a totally gullible fool sap, no?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/38fd17731d8851a8

http://RejectTheBrainwash.com

Bill Penrose

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 12:08:13 PM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 1:24 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> making fun of atheists
>
> is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> or cruel?
>
> or out of line?

Hopefully, it's all three. Keep on writin'

DB

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 1:07:02 PM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 7:20 am, Marcus Aurelius <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Find words that rhymes with existentialism.

should be.....words that rhyme with ...

typographical error

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 1:26:01 PM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 1:07 pm, Marcus Aurelius <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
La Persistencia De La Mammoria

Surrealistic globes of the eternal mother

Protrusions persuading, prominently displayed
Perpetually enticing innately ingrained
Indelible memory of Dolly and Dali
Persistently salivating Salvador

----
Mark

Sorry, damn dyslexic typos
"Surrelistic"

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 2:59:30 PM1/29/09

to

You're likely to end up doing Homeric irony:

'Ooh you atheists, think you're so _rational_, demanding "evidence"
before you accept that God exists.'

Here's the thing. You can say, "I like to believe in God. It makes me
feel good and does no harm to you," and only the most rabid antitheist
will care. But once you say, "God exists," you let yourself in for
it.

So why don't you give it a go? You're like pacing around, talking
about how easy you're going to find it, but you haven't even had a
pop.

Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.

"Oooh look at me everyone, I'm an _atheist_, and I 'care' whether the
things I believe are 'true.'"

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 3:09:37 PM1/29/09

to

You're wrong. Anyone who does not believe in God is an atheist.

>
> >so i guess i should leave the poor fools alone and start focusing on
> >the far more challenging agnostics.
>
> >making fun of _them_ would be a much better test of my enormous
> >talents.
>
> "I know where you live and I've seen where you sleep" is a quote from
> the movie Tommy Boy. Don't prattle about your "enormous talents"
> amigo, either shut up about them or show me what you've done with
> them.
>
>
>
>
>
> >it's just that the blowhard atheists are usually the most pompous and
> >idiotically arrogant, surpassed only by the Rush Limbaughs and Jerry
> >Falwells of the world. so there's such a sense of justice in making
> >their minds snap like i do.
>
> >> Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write
> >> a poem about something more practical?
>
> >yes.
>
> >> Breasts, maybe?
>
> > "ode to your boobs"
>
> >hm, maybe you've got a good idea there.
>
> >> Flowers have been overdone imo.
>
> >no way, dude.
>
> Way. <g>
>
> --

> sig text to prevent insertion of advertising- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 3:52:06 PM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 08:24, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > making fun of atheists
>
> > is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> > or cruel?
>
> > or out of line?
>
> > as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
> > before i finish this poem.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > Reality Check -- how many hours per day do you...
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1483d297756de348
>
> > http://PollThis.com
>
> You're likely to end up doing Homeric irony:
>
> 'Ooh you atheists, think you're so _rational_, demanding "evidence"
> before you accept that God exists.'

the illusion that atheists are rational is by far the easiest thing to
ridicule.

demanding "evidence", FFS? hardly.

you consider yourself an atheist, right Jackson?

so, here, take this little "rational thinker" evidence test:

1. is there credible evidence that Socrates and Plato actually
existed?

if so, what is it?

if not, why not?

2. is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed?

if so, what is it?

if not, why not?

3. have there ever been any popes who actually existed?

if so, who was the very first pope for which there's credible evidence
actually existed?

> Here's the thing. You can say, "I like to believe in God. It makes me
> feel good and does no harm to you," and only the most rabid antitheist
> will care.

oh my.

how utterly thoughtful and open-minded.

surely non-atheists the world over should be ever so grateful for
this, huh?

> But once you say, "God exists," you let yourself in for it.

in for what, FFS?

you act like that declaration crosses some "important" line of some
sort.

> So why don't you give it a go?

give what a go?

> You're like pacing around, talking about how easy you're
> going to find it, but you haven't even had a pop.

answer the three questions above.

the point is not how easy it is to prove the existence of God, that's
a personal issue for each individual to grapple with.

the point is how easy it is prove that atheists are totally irrational
and silly. *

contrary to their arrogantly held illusions about themselves.

get it?

* especially for putting their total faith into absolutely nothing.

> Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.

hard enough?

it's easy as pie, dude.

> "Oooh look at me everyone, I'm an _atheist_, and I 'care'
> whether the things I believe are 'true.'"

indeed.

-$Zero...

http://RejectTheBrainwash.com

the flimsy fashionable flavors of history
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/39213abf93fba87f

Grand Mal

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:02:38 PM1/29/09

to

"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1b72cb2-b47a-45b9...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 08:24, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > making fun of atheists
>
> > is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> > or cruel?
>
> > or out of line?
>
> > as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
> > before i finish this poem.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > Reality Check -- how many hours per day do you...
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1483d297756de348
>
> > http://PollThis.com
>
> You're likely to end up doing Homeric irony:
>
> 'Ooh you atheists, think you're so _rational_, demanding "evidence"
> before you accept that God exists.'

-the illusion that atheists are rational is by far the easiest thing to
-ridicule.

-demanding "evidence", FFS? hardly.

-you consider yourself an atheist, right Jackson?

-so, here, take this little "rational thinker" evidence test:

-1. is there credible evidence that Socrates and Plato actually
-existed?

-if so, what is it?

-if not, why not?

-2. is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed?

-if so, what is it?

-if not, why not?

-3. have there ever been any popes who actually existed?

-if so, who was the very first pope for which there's credible evidence
-actually existed?

I don't get it. What do they have to do with the existance of God? I mean,
if the bartender's an atheist and Socrates, Jesus and the Pope walk in,
they'd still get served, wouldn't they?

Grand Mal

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:07:45 PM1/29/09

to

"Grand Mal" <iron...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OPogl.8680$Db2.2733@edtnps83...

Heard this oldie?

Renes Descartes is flying on an airplane. Stewardess comes up and says'
"Excuse me, sir. Would you like some coffee or tea?" Descartes says, "Oh, I
think not." and POOF, he disappeares!

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:13:25 PM1/29/09

to

On Jan 29, 4:02 pm, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

these questions go to the illusions of rationality that atheists have
regarding their belief system as it compares to "believers" in "God".

most will answer NO to question #2 for no other reason than irrational
emotion and/or brainwash.

and almost all will have no clue whatsoever how to answer question
#3.

yet most will answer YES to question #1.

there are exceptions, of course, but we're talking the vast majority
of atheists.

the stupid gullible inconsistent sap variety.

these are the ones who are the easiest to ridicule.

like Alan, for instance.

-$Zero...

[creator of the pope challenge, bows]
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/80f1b1da6c128f09

http://RejectTheBrainwash.com

Towse

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:19:16 PM1/29/09

to

Why would believing or not believing in Jesus determine whether you are
an atheist or not?

--
Sal

Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:31:13 PM1/29/09

to

i never said it did, did i?

i'm commenting about atheists and their illogic and irrationalities.

Jesus of Nazareth (and the subsequent succession of popes) simply
serves the illustration of their typical irrationality quite well.

it's totally predictable how an average self-deluded atheist will
answer those three questions.

1. Yes (whatever silly justification, usually "chain" of proof)
2. No (fairy tale)
3. Yes. (don't know who the first "real" historical pope is)

-$Zero...

Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com

http://RejectTheBrainwash.com

Grand Mal

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:36:13 PM1/29/09

to

"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b167627a-f8be-4633...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

-i never said it did, did i?

-i'm commenting about atheists and their illogic and irrationalities.

-Jesus of Nazareth (and the subsequent succession of popes) simply
-serves the illustration of their typical irrationality quite well.

-it's totally predictable how an average self-deluded atheist will
-answer those three questions.

-1. Yes (whatever silly justification, usually "chain" of proof)
-2. No (fairy tale)
-3. Yes. (don't know who the first "real" historical pope is)

-$Zero...

You're pretty new to this predatory stuff, ain'tcha. You'll never catch
anything if you keep poking your trap with a stick to show people how it
works.

$Zero

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 4:49:25 PM1/29/09

to

heh.

> You'll never catch anything if you keep poking your trap
> with a stick to show people how it works.

well, most atheists are pathologically unable to answer #2 in any
other way.

same with #1, but for different "reasons".

and #3 is just too funny for words.

but sure, they could easily answer YES to #2 and avoid most of the
ridicule.

anyway, i'm not trying to trap anyone, i'm just expressing my
observations of the typical brainwashed atheist mindset.

IMO, it speaks for itself.

-$Zero...

man, you are so whoooooooshed.
you don't even see how, do you?
owned.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/012e63682b65de81

http://PollThis.com

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 5:16:41 PM1/29/09

to

On 29 Jan, 20:52, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Jan, 08:24, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > making fun of atheists
>
> > > is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> > > or cruel?
>
> > > or out of line?
>
> > > as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
> > > before i finish this poem.
>
> > > -$Zero...
>
> > > Reality Check -- how many hours per day do you...
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1483d297756de348
>
> > > http://PollThis.com
>
> > You're likely to end up doing Homeric irony:
>
> > 'Ooh you atheists, think you're so _rational_, demanding "evidence"
> > before you accept that God exists.'
>
> the illusion that atheists are rational is by far the easiest thing to
> ridicule.

Uh oh. <putting on ridicule helmet>

>
> demanding "evidence", FFS? hardly.
>
> you consider yourself an atheist, right Jackson?

I do.

>
> so, here, take this little "rational thinker" evidence test:

Oh a quiz. Goodie!

>
> 1. is there credible evidence that Socrates and Plato actually
> existed?

I think there is, yes, though I'm not an expert.

>
> if so, what is it?

Written first hand accounts.

>
> if not, why not?
>
> 2. is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed?

The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is sketchier. First, the four
gospels differ from each other considerably on significant details.
Second, they were written at least 30 years after his death, and
edited for centuries afterwards. For instance, the crucial story of
Jesus saving the adulteress from stoning is reckoned by some scholars
to have been added centuries later. Third, they are contradicted by
other historical records. Another serious problem with the story of
Jesus is the nature of the claims made about him. In Matthew, he was
supposedly born of a virgin. We all know where babies come from, so
that tends to discredit Matthew. And so on. Compare that with claims
made about Socrates. He was supposed to have hung around the
marketplace in Athens, having arguments with people, then been
sentenced to death for political reasons. Remarkable story, but no
outlandish claims, such as raising a man from the dead, after he had
already begun to stink, or magically killing a fig tree. That said, it
seems likely to me that the Gospels are based on some holy man or
amalgam of holy men of the period. Perhaps one of them was called
Jesus of Nazareth. It doesn't really matter to me, as an atheist.
Anyway, there are fewer problems of this sort in the evidence for
Socrates, so I have fewer problems accepting that he probably
existed.

>
> if so, what is it?
>
> if not, why not?
>
> 3. have there ever been any popes who actually existed?

Yes.

>
> if so, who was the very first pope for which there's credible evidence
> actually existed?

I haven't got the foggiest idea.

>
> > Here's the thing. You can say, "I like to believe in God. It makes me
> > feel good and does no harm to you," and only the most rabid antitheist
> > will care.
>
> oh my.
>
> how utterly thoughtful and open-minded.
>
> surely non-atheists the world over should be ever so grateful for
> this, huh?
>
> > But once you say, "God exists," you let yourself in for it.
>
> in for what, FFS?

Ridicule.

>
> you act like that declaration crosses some "important" line of some
> sort.

Indeed it does.

>
> > So why don't you give it a go?
>
> give what a go?

Ridiculing atheists. So far, you've carried on a petty grudge against
Alan Hope.

>
> > You're like pacing around, talking about how easy you're
> > going to find it, but you haven't even had a pop.
>
> answer the three questions above.

Done.

>
> the point is not how easy it is to prove the existence of God, that's
> a personal issue for each individual to grapple with.

What?

>
> the point is how easy it is prove that atheists are totally irrational
> and silly. *
>
> contrary to their arrogantly held illusions about themselves.
>
> get it?
>
> * especially for putting their total faith into absolutely nothing.

Shut up. Just because I don't believe in God does not mean I have
faith in nothing, as if I worship a nothing. That's patently stupid.

>
> > Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.
>
> hard enough?
>
> it's easy as pie, dude.
>
> > "Oooh look at me everyone, I'm an _atheist_, and I 'care'
> > whether the things I believe are 'true.'"
>
> indeed.
>
> -$Zero...
>
> http://RejectTheBrainwash.com
>
> the flimsy fashionable flavors of history

> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/39213abf93fba87f- Hide quoted text -

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 5:23:42 PM1/29/09

to

Why is that silly?

> 2. No (fairy tale)

Do you believe that Jesus magically withered a fig tree?

> 3. Yes. (don't know who the first "real" historical pope is)

What's that got to do with anything?

>
> -$Zero...
>
> Whenever two or more people gather in
> the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
> http://bickerfest.com
>

> http://RejectTheBrainwash.com- Hide quoted text -

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 5:26:07 PM1/29/09

to

Why? Demonstrate that the evidence for Jesus is as strong as that for
Socrates.

>
> anyway, i'm not trying to trap anyone, i'm just expressing my
> observations of the typical brainwashed atheist mindset.

What do you base your belief in Jesus on?

>
> IMO, it speaks for itself.
>
> -$Zero...
>
> man, you are so whoooooooshed.
> you don't even see how, do you?
> owned.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/012e63682b65de81
>

> http://PollThis.com- Hide quoted text -

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 5:31:01 AM1/30/09

to

"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 29, 8:58 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

>> >making fun of _them_ would be a much better test of my enormous
>> >talents.
>>
>> "I know where you live and I've seen where you sleep" is a quote from
>> the movie Tommy Boy. Don't prattle about your "enormous talents"
>> amigo, either shut up about them or show me what you've done with
>> them.
>
>kinda hard to suck them in if i merely show instead of tell, ya know?

Why do you want to "suck them in"?

Into what?

For what?

Are you still enmeshed in that need-money thinger? Gawd, I hope not.

Any good con knows that the rubes suck themselves in. Just write it,
really.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 5:41:49 AM1/30/09

to

Ultraviolet <paula...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 29, 5:58 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><>
>
>> >yeah, well, it's the vocal no-doubt-about-it atheists to which i'm
>> >referring.
>>
>> Those folks are in the category I label anti-theists. Atheists are
>> undecided. Look it up, really. No point looking the fool for using
>> the wrong words when it's so easy to keep things straight. Then at
>> least when people argue with you, both parties know what they're
>> talking about. Mostly.
>
>
>I think you're confused, boots.

Wouldn't be the first or the last time for that.

> Atheists do not believe in the
>existence of a supreme being; agnostics say it's impossible to know if
>there's one or not.

We talked about this months ago. I did some research. I found that
the meanings of the words vary sufficiently to make them nearly
useless.

Here is one example, by this explanation there seems to be no
difference between agnosticism and "weak atheism" except the agnostic
holds that existence is unknowable whereas the "weak atheistic" view
just doesn't profess to know:

'Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they
actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just
lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is
known as "strong atheism."'

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 5:57:46 AM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

[First an aside. Please feel entirely free to explain to me that our
views differ, that you feel I am seeing things incorrectly, that I am
mistaken, etc; but when you apply the word "wrong" there is a moral
connotation and implication that I consider both unjustified and
argumentative.]

> Anyone who does not believe in God is an atheist.

Please see my reply to UV, Jackson. Agnostics do not believe in God
because they believe the existence of God to be unknowable, whereas
atheists do not believe in the existence of God because either they
simply do not know, or they actively believe that God does not exist.
Given that logic, your statement that "anyone who does not believe in
God is an atheist" could be considered incorrect or mistaken.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 6:05:14 AM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>"... I 'care' whether the things I believe are 'true.'"

Now that's sappy, innit? <g>

Still, I'm reminded of Hub McCann's "manhood speech" in Secondhand
Lions.

I also wonder how much time any intellectually honest God spends
asking himself whether there is a God above him.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 6:08:43 AM1/30/09

to

"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Jan, 08:24, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > making fun of atheists
>>
>> > is it considered politically incorrect?
>>
>> > or cruel?
>>
>> > or out of line?
>>
>> > as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
>> > before i finish this poem.
>>
>> > -$Zero...
>>
>> > Reality Check -- how many hours per day do you...
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1483d297756de348
>>
>> > http://PollThis.com
>>
>> You're likely to end up doing Homeric irony:
>>
>> 'Ooh you atheists, think you're so _rational_, demanding "evidence"
>> before you accept that God exists.'
>
>the illusion that atheists are rational is by far the easiest thing to
>ridicule.

I think that, by and large, atheists are quite rational.

I also think that rationality is a tin god people carry around to
protect them at night from things inexplicable.

Shit happens. If you want to understand why, either figure it out for
yourself, or find an intelligent lifeform and ask it. Good luck
finding an intelligent lifeform.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 6:09:30 AM1/30/09

to

"Grand Mal" <iron...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sure, but whose beer gets the spit?

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 6:13:46 AM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Sorry to interrupt this vitally important train of thought, but when
you say "belief in Jesus" precisely what do you mean? Do you mean
belief that someone actually lived as the prototype for the stories
about Jesus? Do you mean belief that Jesus is man's "saviour" and
only middleman to God? Do you mean belief that Jesus is the messianic
"Christ"? All of these? None of these? What?

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 6:18:12 AM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 29 Jan, 20:52, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> if so, who was the very first pope for which there's credible evidence
>> actually existed?
>
>I haven't got the foggiest idea.

Good answer ,Jackson. I think it's a trick question. I don't think
there was any "pope" prior to the nicean council circa 100AD. I don't
think the pope became infallible until even later. Could be mistaken
of course. Still, not taking the bait keeps your hand out of the
trap.

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:01:56 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 6:18 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

The first council of Nicea was in 325AD convened
by the Roman Emperor Constantine.

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:09:39 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 6:18 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

Constantine was the first pope.

$Zero

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:15:53 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 29, 5:16 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 20:52, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > On 29 Jan, 08:24, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > making fun of atheists
>
> > > > is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> > > > or cruel?
>
> > > > or out of line?
>
> > > > as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
> > > > before i finish this poem.
>
> > > > -$Zero...
>
> > > > Reality Check -- how many hours per day do you...
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1483d297756de348
>
> > > > http://PollThis.com
>
> > > You're likely to end up doing Homeric irony:
>
> > > 'Ooh you atheists, think you're so _rational_, demanding "evidence"
> > > before you accept that God exists.'
>
> > the illusion that atheists are rational is by far the easiest thing to
> > ridicule.
>
> Uh oh. <putting on ridicule helmet>

and don't forget to fasten your seat belt.

> > demanding "evidence", FFS? hardly.
>
> > you consider yourself an atheist, right Jackson?
>
> I do.

a believer in nothing.

> > so, here, take this little "rational thinker" evidence test:
>
> Oh a quiz. Goodie!

use only a #2 pencil, or your answers will not be accepted.

> > 1. is there credible evidence that Socrates and Plato actually
> > existed?
>
> I think there is, yes, though I'm not an expert.

so you take their actual existence as a matter of faith.

even though you've done no "expert research" on the matter.

i see.

> > if so, what is it?
>
> Written first hand accounts.

how do you know they are authentic first hand accounts?

> > if not, why not?
>
> > 2. is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed?
>
> The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is sketchier.

you're not an expert about the existence of Socrates and Plato, yet
you take it on faith that the evidence for Jesus is somehow
sketchier.

are you an expert on the evidence of Jesus?

if so, why?

if not, don't you think you should be a bit more objective and become
an expert on both matters before you "rationally" decide which is
sketchier?

> First, the four
> gospels differ from each other considerably on significant details.

such as?

and doesn't that tend to add credibility rather than subtract from it?

ask any expert interrogator about that dynamic.

if multiple accounts are a perfect match, it's more likely been
fabricated beforehand.

and given that these four accounts seem to differ in some respects, if
they were merely fabrications, wouldn't those who compiled them into a
book be motivated to remove all such possible conflicts?

yet they didn't. why not?

see how that works?

> Second, they were written at least 30 years after his death,

1. what's your evidence for that?

have they been carbon dated? LOL.

2. why would it matter anyway?

could you not write about actual events that you experienced 30 years
ago?

i could.

some details might be off a bit, but the general story would be
accurate overall.

> and edited for centuries afterwards.

edited how?

and what's your evidence?

and why weren't they edited in such a way that they perfectly matched?

> For instance, the crucial story of
> Jesus saving the adulteress from stoning is reckoned by
> some scholars to have been added centuries later.

what's your evidence for that?

and why would they do such a thing?

what is the significance of adding that story?

were they somehow wishing to excuse adultery?

> Third, they are contradicted by other historical records.

oh my.

one wonders if that isn't always the case everywhere in every time
concerning all historical records everywhere.

i mean, just think about the reporting of events in your very own
time.

are there not major contradictions depending upon who is reporting?

whoa.

> Another serious problem with the story of
> Jesus is the nature of the claims made about him.

that's only "serious" if you decide beforehand that the claims made
about him are in fact false, which is silly since, if they were true,
you would have no mechanism whatsoever for anyone to witness them and
report them as such.

see how that works?

you're engaging in a self-confirming conclusion delusion.

on one hand, you're totally relying on first hand accounts, on the
other hand you're totally dismissing first hand accounts.

do try to make up your mind what the value of a first hand account
actually is.

try not to prejudge it based on what the account actually is.

for instance, if someone reported seeing an alien UFO with the word
Jesus painted on it, couldn't it have been a weather balloon?

> In Matthew, he was supposedly born of a virgin.

George Bush was supposedly a smart wise man, just because he was an
idiot fool does that mean that he didn't exist?

> We all know where babies come from, so that tends to
> discredit Matthew.

virgin births are possible.

one need only have a sperm donor and a turkey baster.

but that's besides the point.

you ignorantly dismiss the possibility for the existence of the
divine.

amongst several other possibilities for a virgin birth.

like cloning, etc.

or biological anomalies.

just because you don't like what is reported about the existence and
history of an individual, does not in any way mean that the individual
did not exist.

Alan has a different view, of course, as do all others who cluelessly
deny the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Naz while
gullibly accepting the historical existence of any old Joe Schmoe
Socrates who comes along.

> And so on. Compare that with claims made about Socrates.

so, as long as the Socrates fan club restrained their enthusiasm, it
increases the likelihood that Socrates actually existed?

does that apply to all supposed historical figures?

> He was supposed to have hung around the
> marketplace in Athens, having arguments with people, then been
> sentenced to death for political reasons. Remarkable story,

remarkable.

> but no outlandish claims,

so its the claims, not the person?

just so we're clear.

> such as raising a man from the dead, after he had
> already begun to stink, or magically killing a fig tree. That said, it
> seems likely to me that the Gospels are based on some holy man or
> amalgam of holy men of the period. Perhaps one of them was called
> Jesus of Nazareth. It doesn't really matter to me, as an atheist.

exactly. you suffer from confirmation bias.

as do most others who deny the existence for historical Jesus.

that's not rational.

> Anyway, there are fewer problems of this sort in the evidence for
> Socrates, so I have fewer problems accepting that he probably
> existed.

that's not very consistent, is it?

as an admitted non-expert, you've opened yourself up to believe all
manner of mundane lies.

so actual historical evidence becomes totally non-existent.

and very easy to fuck with.

all one need to do is conceal the lies in mundaneosity and you'll buy
them right up like a sap.

how easy it would be to create historical "contradictions" that
someone like you would gobble up as "proof".

> > if so, what is it?
>
> > if not, why not?
>
> > 3. have there ever been any popes who actually existed?
>
> Yes.

what is your evidence for that?

> > if so, who was the very first pope for which there's credible evidence
> > actually existed?
>
> I haven't got the foggiest idea.

exactly.

which goes to show how thorough your are in evaluating the truth of
things.

> > > Here's the thing. You can say, "I like to believe in God. It makes me
> > > feel good and does no harm to you," and only the most rabid antitheist
> > > will care.
>
> > oh my.
>
> > how utterly thoughtful and open-minded.
>
> > surely non-atheists the world over should be ever so grateful for
> > this, huh?
>
> > > But once you say, "God exists," you let yourself in for it.
>
> > in for what, FFS?
>
> Ridicule.

is that something to be avoided at all costs?

yikes.

it's pathological, innit.

hence Alan's inability to take a stab at these things.

he knows how flimsy his knowledge is so he doesn't dare share it.

fear of ridicule.

> > you act like that declaration crosses some "important" line
> > of some sort.
>
> Indeed it does.

what exactly is that "important" line?

> > > So why don't you give it a go?
>
> > give what a go?
>
> Ridiculing atheists. So far, you've carried on a petty grudge
> against Alan Hope.

you believe that because i ridicule Alan?

Gawd.

you so-called rationalists are some sick puppies.

> > > You're like pacing around, talking about how easy you're
> > > going to find it, but you haven't even had a pop.
>
> > answer the three questions above.
>
> Done.

there's follow-ups.

but you'll likely throw your hands up.

that's how self-confirming arrogance operates.

> > the point is not how easy it is to prove the existence of God,
> > that's a personal issue for each individual to grapple with.
>
> What?

what about that are you questioning?

did you have some other notion in mind?

why?

> > the point is how easy it is prove that atheists are totally irrational
> > and silly. *
>
> > contrary to their arrogantly held illusions about themselves.
>
> > get it?
>
> > * especially for putting their total faith into absolutely nothing.
>
> Shut up. Just because I don't believe in God does not mean I have
> faith in nothing, as if I worship a nothing. That's patently stupid.

as an atheist, that is precisely what you place your faith in.

nothing.

which is, as you say, patently stupid.

i rest my case.

> > > Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.
>
> > hard enough?
>
> > it's easy as pie, dude.
>
> > > "Oooh look at me everyone, I'm an _atheist_, and I 'care'
> > > whether the things I believe are 'true.'"
>
> > indeed.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > http://RejectTheBrainwash.com
>
> > the flimsy fashionable flavors of history
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/39213abf93fba87f-Hide quoted text -

-$Zero...

after all, you have no proof that what they witnessed didn't
happen, you simply choose to believe that it did not.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/80f2c9560cb9ef70

http://FactDudes.com

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:39:27 AM1/30/09

to

Marcus Aurelius <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What's a couple hundred years between friends, eh? Interesting that
the guy who set up the meeting took away the goodies, or is the name a
coincidence?

Ultraviolet

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:44:10 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 3:08 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> On 29 Jan, 08:24, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > making fun of atheists
>
> >> > is it considered politically incorrect?
>
> >> > or cruel?
>
> >> > or out of line?
>
> >> > as a former atheist, i'd really like to know
> >> > before i finish this poem.
>
> >> > -$Zero...
>
> >> > Reality Check -- how many hours per day do you...
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1483d297756de348
>
> >> > http://PollThis.com
>
> >> You're likely to end up doing Homeric irony:
>
> >> 'Ooh you atheists, think you're so _rational_, demanding "evidence"
> >> before you accept that God exists.'
>
> >the illusion that atheists are rational is by far the easiest thing to
> >ridicule.
>
> I think that, by and large, atheists are quite rational.
>
> I also think that rationality is a tin god people carry around to
> protect them at night from things inexplicable.

Rationality doesn't comfort *me* -- it's scary. It's so scary that at
times I wish I could believe in the supernatural, which is part of the
reason I don't. I figure that scared people created the god-myths for
comfort because they were feeling just as I feel. Note I'm not saying
that everyone who believes in a supreme being or whatever does so out
of fear; I'm saying that's probably why they were made up originally.
Later, people had other reasons for continuing the myths and
instilling them in their children or the populace.

> Shit happens. If you want to understand why, either figure it out for
> yourself, or find an intelligent lifeform and ask it. Good luck
> finding an intelligent lifeform.

I accept that there might be no "why," no point to anything, as
dismaying as that is.

--
UV

$Zero

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:12:47 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 5:31 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 29, 8:58 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> >> >making fun of _them_ would be a much better test of my enormous
> >> >talents.
>
> >> "I know where you live and I've seen where you sleep" is a quote from
> >> the movie Tommy Boy. Don't prattle about your "enormous talents"
> >> amigo, either shut up about them or show me what you've done with
> >> them.
>
> >kinda hard to suck them in if i merely show instead of tell, ya know?
>
> Why do you want to "suck them in"?

i call myself a creative genius for three reasons.

1. it's true.

2. it's amusing.

3. stating so causes people to underestimate moi.

> Into what?

interesting discussions.

> For what?

interesting discussions.

> Are you still enmeshed in that need-money thinger?
> Gawd, I hope not.

send all your cash to moi.

> Any good con knows that the rubes suck themselves in.

true, but i'm not trying to con anyone.

> Just write it, really.

ok.

-$Zero...

i'm just as objective as i am intuitive.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/94db93ca7c53177a

http://RejectTheBrainwash.com

Ultraviolet

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:21:57 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 4:15 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<>

> so you take their actual existence as a matter of faith.

Speaking only for my atheistic self, I take a lot of things on faith
-- forex, that other drivers are generally going to obey the traffic
laws, that my office building will be in the same location today as it
was yesterday, that there won't be poisonous snakes in my desk drawer
this morning, etc., or else I'd never leave the house -- but that
doesn't mean I must leap to believing anything and everything.

Believers come in all degrees of faith as well. Some have faith only
in a supreme being that they can't describe very well. Others believe
in a very specific supreme being and other supernatural concepts, such
as angels, demons, heaven, etc. Most of them don't also believe in the
the existence of genies and vampires and talking dogs though. So what?
As you said, if one "miracle" is possible, why not all of them? But no
one tells a theist, ah hah, you believe in God; therefore, you ought
to believe in talking dogs.

It's much easier (for me) to have faith in things that I've already
experienced, such as the location of my office building, than
something like a talking dog, which I have not. It's also not
difficult for me to believe in things similar to those that I've
already experienced, such as that there are other office buildings in
other locations, even if I haven't seen them. If someone tells me that
they go to work in an office building in a city which I've never
visited, I'll probably believe it unless there's a reason to think
that person is lying; if someone tells me there's a talking dog in
that building, I probably won't believe that.

But, sure, I have faith in some things in the absence of proof. As I
said, they are things similar to those which I've already experienced,
and they are also things for which I believe that proof could be
available if I wanted it.

<>

--
UV

Ultraviolet

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:27:17 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 2:41 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

> Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 29, 5:58 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><>
>
> >> >yeah, well, it's the vocal no-doubt-about-it atheists to which i'm
> >> >referring.
>
> >> Those folks are in the category I label anti-theists. Atheists are
> >> undecided. Look it up, really. No point looking the fool for using
> >> the wrong words when it's so easy to keep things straight. Then at
> >> least when people argue with you, both parties know what they're
> >> talking about. Mostly.
>
> >I think you're confused, boots.
>
> Wouldn't be the first or the last time for that.
>
> > Atheists do not believe in the
> >existence of a supreme being; agnostics say it's impossible to know if
> >there's one or not.
>
> We talked about this months ago. I did some research. I found that
> the meanings of the words vary sufficiently to make them nearly
> useless.
>
> Here is one example, by this explanation there seems to be no
> difference between agnosticism and "weak atheism" except the agnostic
> holds that existence is unknowable whereas the "weak atheistic" view
> just doesn't profess to know:

I think that's a pretty significant philosophical difference.

> 'Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
>
> Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they
> actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just
> lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
> position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is
> known as "strong atheism."'
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

I range between weak atheism and moderate atheism, depending on my
mood and how much migraine medicine I've taken. <g>

--
UV

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:55:55 AM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 8:27 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>.......and how much migraine medicine I've taken. <g>

I sensed your pain from early on.

Ultraviolet

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 9:03:23 AM1/30/09

to

Yeah, you're a wonder all right -- I've only written about it
everywhere.

--
UV

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM1/30/09

to

Ultraviolet <paula...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, but using the words on the assumption they have such-and-so
meaning can lead to arguably incorrect statements like "if you don't
believe in god you are an atheist" when in fact you might be either an
atheist or an agnostic depending on why you don't believe. I think in
general usage the term "atheist" coincides with the "strong atheist"
meaning, but there was a time when I was in the "heck i dunno" camp
and thought I was an agnostic when in fact I was a "weak atheist". My
point to $Zero was just to make sure and not to introduce any
confusion of his own into what may already be a confusing topic.

>> 'Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
>> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
>> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
>> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
>> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
>>
>> Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they
>> actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just
>> lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
>> position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is
>> known as "strong atheism."'
>>
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
>
>
>I range between weak atheism and moderate atheism, depending on my
>mood and how much migraine medicine I've taken. <g>

I'm not sure where I fit into the piddling selection of words
available. There is something to which, if you have noticed it in
action, you could easily attribute godness; whether that is because
there is actual godness involved or because humans are stupid and once
we reach some threshold of unbelievable events we conclude "godness",
that's another question. I ask myself, if there is a God with any
shred of intellectual honesty how much time does it spend asking
itself if there's a God (another one, above it on the supremeness
scale). I think the truth of it's unknowable even to any God and the
answer is moot in practical terms, but that doesn't make me an
agnostic or an atheist of either variety.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 10:57:11 AM1/30/09

to

Marcus Aurelius <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

18. psychic healer

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 11:10:13 AM1/30/09

to

Ultraviolet <paula...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whatever works for you kiddo. Nothing works for me, my head is busted
as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but I have learned that
a failure to care if vampires or cougars eat me at night has at least
so far been coincident with my not being eaten and that's close enough
for practical puposes.

You mentioned believing that when you drive to work in the morning
your office building will be in the same place it was yesterday. I've
kind of passed beyond that kind of thinking into the outer limits
somewhere, all I believe is that when I need something from Home Depot
if I start in the direction Home Depot was last seen I will find
whatever I need somewhere. It seems to work out.

>> Shit happens. If you want to understand why, either figure it out for
>> yourself, or find an intelligent lifeform and ask it. Good luck
>> finding an intelligent lifeform.
>
>
>I accept that there might be no "why," no point to anything, as
>dismaying as that is.

Oddly enough there seems in my strange world to be a point to
everything, though as you know I'm still working to get my arms around
how to describe a grain of that sand.

gekko

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 12:26:06 PM1/30/09

to

Here are some of the interesting bits and selected pieces of what
boots <n...@no.no> wrote misc.writing saying:

> Marcus Aurelius <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 30, 8:27 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>.......and how much migraine medicine I've taken. <g>
>>
>>
>>I sensed your pain from early on.
>
> 18. psychic healer
>

diagnostician, shirley.

--
gekko

I think I've figured out why slugs don't like margaritas.

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:26:13 PM1/30/09

to

Ultraviolet goes:

>Speaking only for my atheistic self, I take a lot of things on faith
>-- forex, that other drivers are generally going to obey the traffic
>laws, that my office building will be in the same location today as it
>was yesterday, that there won't be poisonous snakes in my desk drawer
>this morning, etc., or else I'd never leave the house -- but that
>doesn't mean I must leap to believing anything and everything.

That's not faith, it's deductive reasoning. You believe in the
location of your office building because it has always been in the
same place, and because you know of no case of a building changing its
location unexpectedly. Those facts allow you to draw certain
conclusions (if we didn't have this facility, we would stand at the
side of the road unable to cross for eternity).

Faith, on the other hand, allows one to believe in something either in
the absence of any evidence OR in the presence of evidence clearly to
the contrary. Faith is the only reason for believing in certain
phenomena, because there is no question of experience and independent
knowledge, as in deductive reasoning.

In the Christian context, faith is clearly given to be the sole
acceptable reason for believing something (see the example of the
disciple Thomas). And indeed the complete lack of evidence for things
is welcomed as a test of faith, because faith without evidence is the
best kind.

If you have faith, you can move mountains. The many known examples of
people moving mountains will doubtless spring to mind.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:27:30 PM1/30/09

to

boots goes:

>Sorry to interrupt this vitally important train of thought, but when
>you say "belief in Jesus" precisely what do you mean? Do you mean
>belief that someone actually lived as the prototype for the stories
>about Jesus? Do you mean belief that Jesus is man's "saviour" and
>only middleman to God? Do you mean belief that Jesus is the messianic
>"Christ"? All of these? None of these? What?

I've only ever been talking about belief in the historical Jesus. All
the rest follows from that.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:30:27 PM1/30/09

to

Ultraviolet goes:

>Note I'm not saying
>that everyone who believes in a supreme being or whatever does so out
>of fear; I'm saying that's probably why they were made up originally.

You're not saying that, but it's true.

We all suffer the dread that comes from the idea of the end of our own
existence. It's literally unimaginable, and as such, it's scarier than
the darkest night to a man who never saw the sun rise.

Belief in God (which is a necessary condition of the existence of an
afterlife) is a way of comforting that dread. Atheists either don't
have it so bad, or don't want the comfort, or can't bring themselves
to sign up for it.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:32:07 PM1/30/09

to

boots goes:

>You mentioned believing that when you drive to work in the morning
>your office building will be in the same place it was yesterday. I've
>kind of passed beyond that kind of thinking into the outer limits
>somewhere, all I believe is that when I need something from Home Depot
>if I start in the direction Home Depot was last seen I will find
>whatever I need somewhere. It seems to work out.

Indeed. That's what deductive reasoning is. You look at how many times
the sunset has been followed soon after by a sunrise, and that gives
you the confidence to think the darkness will not be forever. It could
still be, but you have no reason to think it might.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:34:18 PM1/30/09

to

On 30 Jan, 10:57, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:

'Agnostic' means 'don't know.' 'Atheist' means, 'don't believe.'
Stictly speaking, if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

>
> --
> sig text to prevent insertion of advertising- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:35:40 PM1/30/09

to

That's what I'm on about, here, too.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:46:03 PM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

An agnostic believes the truth of it to be unknowable, which is not
the same as admitting that he doesn't know the truth of it.

>Stictly speaking, if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

Strictly speaking, you're mistaken.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:51:03 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

>boots goes:
>
>>Sorry to interrupt this vitally important train of thought, but when
>>you say "belief in Jesus" precisely what do you mean? Do you mean
>>belief that someone actually lived as the prototype for the stories
>>about Jesus? Do you mean belief that Jesus is man's "saviour" and
>>only middleman to God? Do you mean belief that Jesus is the messianic
>>"Christ"? All of these? None of these? What?
>
>I've only ever been talking about belief in the historical Jesus.

That's wonderful Mr All About Alan, and it does serve to confirm the
obvious, but the question was asked in a response to Jackson, not Your
Selfcentricness.

> All the rest follows from that.

All the rest may or may not follow from that. I have no qualms about
accepting the idea that there was someone behind the legends, but when
people start making that fellow the one and only middleman with access
to God, I start looking to find out where the hat is and who gets the
money (which by the way I'm not putting in).

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:51:36 PM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up, Jackson.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:52:44 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr Peabody's coal train for example.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 1:53:58 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

>boots goes:
>
>>You mentioned believing that when you drive to work in the morning
>>your office building will be in the same place it was yesterday. I've
>>kind of passed beyond that kind of thinking into the outer limits
>>somewhere, all I believe is that when I need something from Home Depot
>>if I start in the direction Home Depot was last seen I will find
>>whatever I need somewhere. It seems to work out.
>
>Indeed. That's what deductive reasoning is. You look at how many times
>the sunset has been followed soon after by a sunrise, and that gives
>you the confidence

Which btw is one of the meanings given the word 'faith'.

> to think the darkness will not be forever. It could
>still be, but you have no reason to think it might.

I've found apathy to be quite useful.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 2:10:05 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ultraviolet goes:
>
>>Note I'm not saying
>>that everyone who believes in a supreme being or whatever does so out
>>of fear; I'm saying that's probably why they were made up originally.
>
>You're not saying that, but it's true.
>
>We all suffer the dread that comes from the idea of the end of our own
>existence.

No, we all do not. I do not dread that. I fucking welcome it just as
I would welcome any form of early release from prison or early
retirement. The only reason I didn't kill myself years ago in
response to life's pointlessness is that I decided it was beneath me
to do the fucking wetwork and the idea of running myself out of town
pissed me off. Since then I've learned that there is more to life
than being a mechanical subject in a world of verbs, but the dread has
never returned. I still experience physical fear of pain, but death?
Bring it, I'm as ready this moment as I'll be in a thousand years.
Death is my copilot, regardless how trite that sounds; being truly
suicidal yet choosing to live gives one a previously unimaginable
level of apathetic freedom, it couples the thoughts "the worst that
can happen is what?" and "fucksake don't make me laugh!". It's a
"please don't throw me in the briar patch" freedom. I doubt you
understand.

> It's literally unimaginable, and as such, it's scarier than
>the darkest night to a man who never saw the sun rise.
>
>Belief in God (which is a necessary condition of the existence of an
>afterlife

Strictly speaking I'm not sure that I'd agree with that unless you're
using a meaning of "afterlife" that is limited to harps and pitchforks
or perpetual virgins.

>) is a way of comforting that dread. Atheists either don't
>have it so bad, or don't want the comfort, or can't bring themselves
>to sign up for it.

I'd say if the cost of being unafraid is to suck down huge quantities
of shit, it's simply not worth it. Fear won't kill you, really.
Might make you spot your unders but it won't kill you.

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 2:35:07 PM1/30/09

to

I believe in lots of things. Other minds, for instance. Though it's
not a blind leap of faith.

>
> > > so, here, take this little "rational thinker" evidence test:
>
> > Oh a quiz. Goodie!
>
> use only a #2 pencil, or your answers will not be accepted.
>
> > > 1. is there credible evidence that Socrates and Plato actually
> > > existed?
>
> > I think there is, yes, though I'm not an expert.
>
> so you take their actual existence as a matter of faith.

It's not hugely important to me; that's first. I don't go to Socrates
Sunday School. Second, no, as I explained, not a matter of faith. You
need to look up what that word means. But then, you don't know what +
or 3 mean, so I don't hold out much hope.

>
> even though you've done no "expert research" on the matter.
>
> i see.

Can I say, at this point, that I find your way of breaking everything
up annoying? You come close to ruining the context. Please try to keep
paragraphs intact, unless you have a good reason to break them up.

>
> > > if so, what is it?
>
> > Written first hand accounts.
>
> how do you know they are authentic first hand accounts?

I accept that they probably are.

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 3:26:36 PM1/30/09

to

boots goes:

>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>boots goes:
>>
>>>Sorry to interrupt this vitally important train of thought, but when
>>>you say "belief in Jesus" precisely what do you mean? Do you mean
>>>belief that someone actually lived as the prototype for the stories
>>>about Jesus? Do you mean belief that Jesus is man's "saviour" and
>>>only middleman to God? Do you mean belief that Jesus is the messianic
>>>"Christ"? All of these? None of these? What?
>>
>>I've only ever been talking about belief in the historical Jesus.
>
>That's wonderful Mr All About Alan, and it does serve to confirm the
>obvious, but the question was asked in a response to Jackson, not Your
>Selfcentricness.

Then send it by email, cunt.

In any case, you have your answer, which is as I say.

>> All the rest follows from that.

>All the rest may or may not follow from that. I have no qualms about
>accepting the idea that there was someone behind the legends, but when
>people start making that fellow the one and only middleman with access
>to God, I start looking to find out where the hat is and who gets the
>money (which by the way I'm not putting in).

Once you realise that there's no historical basis for thinking the man
Jesus even existed, the rest falls away.

Of course, even if you think Jesus left his prints in the dust of
Palestine, you may still have problems with the rest of it.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 3:27:21 PM1/30/09

to

boots goes:

>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>boots goes:
>>
>>>You mentioned believing that when you drive to work in the morning
>>>your office building will be in the same place it was yesterday. I've
>>>kind of passed beyond that kind of thinking into the outer limits
>>>somewhere, all I believe is that when I need something from Home Depot
>>>if I start in the direction Home Depot was last seen I will find
>>>whatever I need somewhere. It seems to work out.
>>
>>Indeed. That's what deductive reasoning is. You look at how many times
>>the sunset has been followed soon after by a sunrise, and that gives
>>you the confidence
>
>Which btw is one of the meanings given the word 'faith'.

Not in the religious context. Read what I wrote.

>> to think the darkness will not be forever. It could
>>still be, but you have no reason to think it might.

>I've found apathy to be quite useful.

I've never seen anyone so busy being apathetic.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 3:27:59 PM1/30/09

to

boots goes:

>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ultraviolet goes:
>>
>>>Note I'm not saying
>>>that everyone who believes in a supreme being or whatever does so out
>>>of fear; I'm saying that's probably why they were made up originally.
>>
>>You're not saying that, but it's true.
>>
>>We all suffer the dread that comes from the idea of the end of our own
>>existence.
>
>No, we all do not. I do not dread that.

Yeahrightsure.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 3:28:28 PM1/30/09

to

boots goes:

I could have set my watch by your dullard response.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 3:34:14 PM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock goes:

>Have you considered doing your own
>homework?

Zero's technique consists of knowing fuck-all about the subject he's
arguing about, and badgering you with incessant questions to provide
evidence for what you're saying. When you, like any normal person,
become frustrated that he now appears to be discussing haggis and
popes, which were never the topic, and give up wasting your time on
him, he proceeds to claim victory, and append idiotic quotes of his
own words at the end of his posts.

Meanwhile, he won't do his own homework because he thinks asserting
things is good enough, seeing as it's a creative genius doing the
asserting. He hasn't grasped that nobody else anywhere on the planet
sees it that way.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 3:35:23 PM1/30/09

to

Jackson Pillock goes:

> 'Agnostic' means 'don't know.' 'Atheist' means, 'don't believe.'
>Stictly speaking, if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

There's a fine line between "doesn't believe in god," which could be
agnostic or atheist, and "believes in no god," which is unequivocally
atheist.

--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 6:50:21 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jackson Pillock goes:
>
>> 'Agnostic' means 'don't know.' 'Atheist' means, 'don't believe.'
>>Stictly speaking, if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.
>
>There's a fine line between "doesn't believe in god," which could be
>agnostic or atheist, and "believes in no god," which is unequivocally
>atheist.

You've both missed the line between "i don't know" and "i am convinced
it is unknowable" which is unfortunate because the agnostic is
convinced that the existence of God is unknowable, not that God does
or does not exist. The individual who thinks the existence of God is
knowable but doesn't know fills the "weak atheist" position, not the
agnostic. The person I call anti-theist is convinced that the
existence of God is knowable and actively believes that there is no
God, equivalent to the "strong atheist" position. But the anti-theist
description seems to convey some slight bit of rabidness, don't you
think?

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 6:58:22 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

Have you considered the differences in implications for the cases
where (a) Jesus existed as described and (b) Jesus was an entirely
fictional character? Granted I encountered the material at a time
when my views were largely unformed, but it contained concepts that
were for me at that time new concepts. Some of those concepts I
immediately rejected even at that young age, others pointed to very
interesting possibilities. Without devoting decades to studying the
subject I can't guess whether if fictional it was an amalgam of
earlier parts or an entirely new work. If fictional I'd say it was
the product of either a very skilled technical writer, or if original
some kind of literary genius. The ideas presented have grasped
generations by the throat and shaken them. It's something to ponder
regardless of its literal veracity.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:00:42 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

At least then you'd know the time, that's something.

boots

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:02:57 PM1/30/09

to

Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:

>boots goes:
>
>>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>boots goes:
>>>
>>>>You mentioned believing that when you drive to work in the morning
>>>>your office building will be in the same place it was yesterday. I've
>>>>kind of passed beyond that kind of thinking into the outer limits
>>>>somewhere, all I believe is that when I need something from Home Depot
>>>>if I start in the direction Home Depot was last seen I will find
>>>>whatever I need somewhere. It seems to work out.
>>>
>>>Indeed. That's what deductive reasoning is. You look at how many times
>>>the sunset has been followed soon after by a sunrise, and that gives
>>>you the confidence
>>
>>Which btw is one of the meanings given the word 'faith'.
>
>Not in the religious context. Read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote, I am pointing out that when a word is used all
of its meanings both connotative and denotative affect the reader who
knows them.

>>> to think the darkness will not be forever. It could
>>>still be, but you have no reason to think it might.
>
>>I've found apathy to be quite useful.
>
>I've never seen anyone so busy being apathetic.

You are no doubt the most prepared and least ready man around.

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 7:50:56 PM1/30/09

to

Agreed. He will always 'win' in this way.

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:31:57 PM1/30/09

to

> sig text to prevent insertion of advertising- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Whatever. I'm willing to use whatever terms you like. My position is,
as you know, that there is no reason to believe in God.

What's yours again? If I remember rightly, you accept that God exists,
based on knowledge which you have gained? In fact, you claim to have
evidence for the existence of God? Am I remembering rightly?

$Zero

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:43:34 PM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 7:50 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jan, 20:34, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jackson Pillock goes:
>
> > >Have you considered doing your own
> > >homework?
>
> > Zero's technique consists of knowing fuck-all about the subject he's
> > arguing about,

you wish.

> > and badgering you with incessant questions to provide
> > evidence for what you're saying.

to show you how deluded you are.

works every time.

> > When you, like any normal person,
> > become frustrated that he now appears to be discussing haggis and
> > popes, which were never the topic,

those two subjects were directly pertinent to the points being made in
the topic.

but since you never answered the questions, you pretend to be
flustered as to the relevance.

however only partially so, because you fully realized what was being
offered, hence your refusal to answer the questions, fearing ridicule.

> > and give up wasting your time on
> > him, he proceeds to claim victory,

when one claims, such as you did, that there's no historic evidence
for Jesus and yet one cannot even name the first non-fictional pope in
a long line of popes leading back to Simon Peter, one has lost the
argument by default.

duh.

it's of no effort to declare victory at that point.

> > and append idiotic quotes of his
> > own words at the end of his posts.

idiotic?

how many dozens of those quotes displayed your refusal and inability
to name the first "real" pope?

many dozen.

all over the course of several days of your avoiding the question and
twisting in the wind over same. trying to buy some time to research
the question so you could possibly later decide which pope to choose.

when will you admit that you were utterly flabbergasted by the
question and shocked into realizing how much misplaced faith you had
placed in your so-called knowledge of the lack of historic evidence
for Jesus?

when will you admit that? never, that's when.

because that's how dishonest you are.

admit it.

> > Meanwhile, he won't do his own homework because he thinks asserting
> > things is good enough,

my questions are intuitive enough to flabbergast the likes of you.

obviously i've done my homework adequately enough for that.

to your continued utter dismay.

> > seeing as it's a creative genius doing the asserting.

yep.

> > He hasn't grasped that nobody else anywhere on the planet
> > sees it that way.

hah!

> Agreed. He will always 'win' in this way.

i will always "win" simply by virtue of winning.

sorry 'bout that.

but worry not, i do lose once in a great while.

so there's still hope that you may be on the other side of the
argument when that occasionally happens.

-$Zero...

being a well-paid "journalist", don't you have those
sorts of powers needed to write a simple essay? it's
been over a couple months now and not a peep of a
response from you yet. just a fearful silence.
so what's the hold-up?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2b79f86258a60fe4

http://IsThisARhetoricalQuestion.com

Towse

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:51:48 PM1/30/09

to

$Zero wrote:

> when one claims, such as you did, that there's no historic evidence
> for Jesus and yet one cannot even name the first non-fictional pope in
> a long line of popes leading back to Simon Peter, one has lost the
> argument by default.

The Roman Catholics claim Simon Peter was the first pope, but not all
Christians agree.

Perhaps your brainwashing as a child and your need to link yourself to
your namesake is causing you confusion.

"What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."*

*Francis Bacon

--
Sal

Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>

$Zero

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 9:14:39 PM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 8:51 pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> $Zero wrote:
>
> > when one claims, such as you did, that there's no historic evidence
> > for Jesus and yet one cannot even name the first non-fictional pope in
> > a long line of popes leading back to Simon Peter, one has lost the
> > argument by default.
>
> The Roman Catholics claim Simon Peter was the first pope, but not all
> Christians agree.

so?

did i ever suggest that all "Christians" agreed about anything, let
alone pope-i-tude?

nope.

so anyway, who is the pope today?

some Roman Catholic dude, right?

hence my using the example of popes.

duh.

> Perhaps your brainwashing as a child and your need to link
> yourself to your namesake is causing you confusion.

what absolute silliness.

i used the pope challenge because there's a pope existing to this day
which links all the way back to Simon Peter, one of the very first
"first hand" apostles who that so-called fictional Jesus specifically
built his church upon.

i can't help it that he happens to have my name, can i?

anyway, i was named after my grandfather, not the first pope.

> "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."*
>
> *Francis Bacon

truth is truth.

which is why Alan and the rest of the poor deluded atheists can never
stop searching for same.

-$Zero...

my questions are intuitive enough
to flabbergast the likes of you.
obviously i've done my homework
adequately enough for that.
to your continued utter dismay.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4f5e491b4358ce28

Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com

Towse

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 11:14:21 PM1/30/09

to

$Zero wrote:

> what absolute silliness.
>
> i used the pope challenge because there's a pope existing to this day
> which links all the way back to Simon Peter, one of the very first
> "first hand" apostles who that so-called fictional Jesus specifically
> built his church upon.

Many Christians don't believe that the pope today links back to Simon
Peter, the first pope of the church.

YMMV.

Towse

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 11:17:26 PM1/30/09

to

$Zero wrote:

> what absolute silliness.
>
> i used the pope challenge because there's a pope existing to this day
> which links all the way back to Simon Peter, one of the very first
> "first hand" apostles who that so-called fictional Jesus specifically
> built his church upon.

Or more to the point:

"Even if we accept the tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome,
however, there is no direct evidence for his having established the
Christian church there. It is likely that Christianity appeared in Rome
some time during the 40s, about two decades before Peter would have
arrived. That Peter founded the Christian church in Rome is more of a
pious legend than historical fact, and the connection between Peter and
bishop of Rome was not even made explicit by the Church until the reign
of Leo I during the fifth century."

[ref: <http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm>]

$Zero

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 11:51:55 PM1/30/09

to

On Jan 30, 11:14 pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> $Zero wrote:
> > what absolute silliness.
>
> > i used the pope challenge because there's a pope existing to this day
> > which links all the way back to Simon Peter, one of the very first
> > "first hand" apostles who that so-called fictional Jesus specifically
> > built his church upon.
>
> Many Christians don't believe that the pope today links back to Simon
> Peter, the first pope of the church.

again, i say, so what?

the point of the pope challenge had to do with noting a trail of
evidence leading back to Simon Peter.

since the Roman Catholic church provides that specific trail, it
should be fairly obvious that other opinions don't enter into it.

i mean, it's not like the RC church is some minor fringe mom and pop
operation.

there's quite a history there, so to speak, no?

i thought we were talking about history here, and Jesus, or am i
mistaken in that regard?

> YMMV.

i suppose.

though, i can't imagine how.

-$Zero...

speaking of flows of occurence, how's that
educated expert Scottish haggis essay of
yours coming along, pudding-boy?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2b79f86258a60fe4

http://PollThis.com

$Zero

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 12:06:32 AM1/31/09

to

On Jan 30, 11:17 pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> $Zero wrote:
> > what absolute silliness.
>
> > i used the pope challenge because there's a pope existing to this day
> > which links all the way back to Simon Peter, one of the very first
> > "first hand" apostles who that so-called fictional Jesus specifically
> > built his church upon.
>
> Or more to the point:
>
> "Even if we accept the tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome,
> however, there is no direct evidence for his having established the
> Christian church there. It is likely that Christianity appeared in Rome
> some time during the 40s, about two decades before Peter would have
> arrived. That Peter founded the Christian church in Rome is more of a
> pious legend than historical fact,

territorial disputes are irrelevant.

Peter was given the keys.

he didn't have to physically be in Rome at any specific time to be the
"pope" or to establish the "church".

just like Obama doesn't need to visit Kentucky to be the president of
some village there.

> and the connection between Peter and
> bishop of Rome was not even made explicit by the Church until
> the reign of Leo I during the fifth century."

carbon dating arguments and whatnot.

but whatever the case may be, it's been "established".

and there exists an historical trail of evidence.

> [ref: <http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm>]

there sure is a shitload of time and effort put into discrediting
Jesus, isn't there?

one wonders why.

-$Zero...

the point of the pope challenge had to do with noting
a trail of evidence leading back to Simon Peter.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5c2eec04d59bf206

Because there's not much of a market for truth
http://PureBullshitTimes.com

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 5:14:20 AM1/31/09

to

I note that you have ignored all my questions, references and
arguments. Is that what you mean by winning?

I'm not feeling particularly riduculed here. When are you going to
start making fun of atheists?

boots

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 5:18:12 AM1/31/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

That's sounds reasonable to me. I suppose that's the "weak agnostic"
position, as if its name matters.

>What's yours again? If I remember rightly, you accept that God exists,
>based on knowledge which you have gained? In fact, you claim to have
>evidence for the existence of God? Am I remembering rightly?

Are these things frozen in time? I missed that memo.

I think that even God cannot know with certainty if there is some
higher God, that it is inherently unknowable. On the other hand that
does not preclude the possibility that some God exists that is from
our perspectives as close to omnipotent as makes any practical
difference.

So although I reject the judeo-christian concepts of what God is and
how He behaves, I accept the possibility that God exists. But I also
accept the possibility that the human mind has some kind of
unbelievability threshold, something that causes us when presented
with the inexplicable yet factual to squawk "AWK! GOD!". And just as
I think it is impossible to know with certainty whether an ultimate
God exists, I think it may be impossible to know whether we have such
an inherent behaviour. Experimentation in that area seems to have
limitations of opportunity.

Evidence for the existence of God? I have experiential evidence that
all is not as I was taught in school that it is. Determining what
that means is another matter. A working hypothesis is not definite
(nevermind absolute) knowledge.

If you actually care what I think you can read what appears on the
below url as I try to get my arms around enough of it to write down.

http://www.commentsfromnobody.blogspot.com

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 5:25:56 AM1/31/09

to

What's the point in believing things which are unknowable?

>
> So although I reject the judeo-christian concepts of what God is and
> how He behaves, I accept the possibility that God exists. But I also
> accept the possibility that the human mind has some kind of
> unbelievability threshold, something that causes us when presented
> with the inexplicable yet factual to squawk "AWK! GOD!". And just as
> I think it is impossible to know with certainty whether an ultimate
> God exists, I think it may be impossible to know whether we have such
> an inherent behaviour. Experimentation in that area seems to have
> limitations of opportunity.
>
> Evidence for the existence of God? I have experiential evidence that
> all is not as I was taught in school that it is. Determining what
> that means is another matter. A working hypothesis is not definite
> (nevermind absolute) knowledge.
>
> If you actually care what I think you can read what appears on the
> below url as I try to get my arms around enough of it to write down.

I'll take a look.

>
> http://www.commentsfromnobody.blogspot.com
>
> --

boots

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 5:43:09 AM1/31/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Jackson, here all this time I've been giving you credit for reading
what is written, silly me! I've not said "believe". You do
understand that accepting that a thing is possible is not a
declaration that that thing is true, do you not?

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 6:32:43 AM1/31/09

to

Do you believe in God?

boots

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 6:58:26 AM1/31/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Is the following so badly written that you cannot comprehend the
answer it contains?

"I think that even God cannot know with certainty if there is some
higher God, that it is inherently unknowable. On the other hand that
does not preclude the possibility that some God exists that is from
our perspectives as close to omnipotent as makes any practical
difference."

You want the Cliff's Notes version because you prefer not to read the
original?

I think the existence of some ultimate God is possible but unknowable.

I have experienced inexplicable but factual events.

Does that amount to a "haleleujah brothers and sisters!"? Is a belief
of possibility the same as a belief in the existence of what is
possible?

You believe it is possible for you to become a successful
screenwriter, are you therefore a successful screenwriter?

If you want to be intellectually lazy, there are numerous pre-digested
belief systems you can latch onto. I'd rather figure it out for
myself as best I can. Mileage varies.

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 7:07:05 AM1/31/09

to

In which case you have no cause to take my comment personally.

>
> I have experienced inexplicable but factual events.
>
> Does that amount to a "haleleujah brothers and sisters!"? Is a belief
> of possibility the same as a belief in the existence of what is
> possible?
>
> You believe it is possible for you to become a successful
> screenwriter, are you therefore a successful screenwriter?

No.

>
> If you want to be intellectually lazy, there are numerous pre-digested
> belief systems you can latch onto. I'd rather figure it out for
> myself as best I can. Mileage varies.

On the other hand, building on previous knowledge can often get you
further than starting from scratch.

$Zero

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 7:22:26 AM1/31/09

to

of course not.

there's like four+ threads going on here related to these subjects.

i read and respond to Usenet thru Google.

it's hard to keep up with the sheer volume of tangents.

i typically read a bunch of posts and go back later to respond.

unless something interesting sticks out that i want to respond to
right there and then.

i sometimes also get distracted by the new posts that pop up when i
refresh the google page.

if i haven't responded to a post of yours yet it certainly isn't
because i'm stumped by any of your questions. i'm not Alan, FFS.

post a google link to a post i've overlooked and i'll respond to it
right away.

otherwise, you'll just have to wait your turn.

> I'm not feeling particularly riduculed here.

well, you definitely should feel that way.

see also you're stumped stiflefest over in the Unicornian Math
tangent.

> When are you going to start making fun of atheists?

i've never stopped.

> > sorry 'bout that.
>
> > but worry not, i do lose once in a great while.
>
> > so there's still hope that you may be on the other side of the
> > argument when that occasionally happens.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > being a well-paid "journalist", don't you have those
> > sorts of powers needed to write a simple essay? it's
> > been over a couple months now and not a peep of a
> > response from you yet. just a fearful silence.
> > so what's the hold-up?
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2b79f86258a60fe4
>
> > http://IsThisARhetoricalQuestion.com

-$Zero...

a circus is a circus.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e5658b9a880d069d

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 7:31:14 AM1/31/09

to

So do I. You're bloody slow for a genius.

>
> it's hard to keep up with the sheer volume of tangents.

Waah. Poor you.

>
> i typically read a bunch of posts and go back later to respond.
>
> unless something interesting sticks out that i want to respond to
> right there and then.
>
> i sometimes also get distracted by the new posts that pop up when i
> refresh the google page.

You are slow.

>
> if i haven't responded to a post of yours yet it certainly isn't
> because i'm stumped by any of your questions. i'm not Alan, FFS.
>
> post a google link to a post i've overlooked and i'll respond to it
> right away.
>
> otherwise, you'll just have to wait your turn.
>
> > I'm not feeling particularly riduculed here.
>
> well, you definitely should feel that way.

Not at all. So far, you have said that 3+3=5, and that there is
equally good evidence for Socrates and Jesus, and that Church
traditions should be treated as reliable evidence. The first is
patently false, the second and third demonstably foolish.

>
> see also you're stumped stiflefest over in the Unicornian Math
> tangent.
>
> > When are you going to start making fun of atheists?
>
> i've never stopped.

Well, that's true, at least.

boots

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 7:34:10 AM1/31/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Okay, <g> I'm lost. Which comment are you referring to?

>> I have experienced inexplicable but factual events.
>>
>> Does that amount to a "haleleujah brothers and sisters!"? Is a belief
>> of possibility the same as a belief in the existence of what is
>> possible?
>>
>> You believe it is possible for you to become a successful
>> screenwriter, are you therefore a successful screenwriter?
>
>
>No.
>
>
>>
>> If you want to be intellectually lazy, there are numerous pre-digested
>> belief systems you can latch onto. I'd rather figure it out for
>> myself as best I can. Mileage varies.
>
>
>On the other hand, building on previous knowledge can often get you
>further than starting from scratch.

Just as with the existence of God, there is a possibility and an
actuality. Building on previous knowledge can possibly get you
farther, and further, than starting from scratch if that previous
knowledge is correct, but building on previous "knowledge" in no way
guarantees that you will get as far as you might if you started from
scratch. The facts of our lives are as they are, and they seem to
provide sufficient clues of themselves. Presuming all previous
knowledge to be true is an act of groundless faith that condemns us to
being creatures of rote. Truth is a road that can only be followed by
examining each turning as we step forward while the intellectually
lazy sit by the road proclaiming that anyone walking is wasting their
time because everything is known. And, the world is flat.

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 8:02:25 AM1/31/09

to

Okay. But by the same token, you'll go mad if you doubt everything,
just for the sake of it. I'll take my chances and board an aeroplane,
rather than make my own.

>
> --
> sig text to prevent insertion of advertising- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

$Zero

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 8:16:37 AM1/31/09

to

well, see, when _i_ respond, as a self-proclaimed creative genius, i
usually have much more to say than you.

i don't just type "No" and run away.

so sometimes it takes me a bit longer to catch up with your "volume"
of posts.

which is why "No" is all you can say.
you haven't got the brains to try to
show why it isn't true, not to mention
the fact that since it _is_ true, that
prevents you from ever showing how it
could possibly be false. your total
inability to back up your brainwashed
insistence in any way whatsoever shows
that you're far more gullible than the
most gullible of religious fools.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/eeb77fe51b6be4ef

> > it's hard to keep up with the sheer volume of tangents.
>
> Waah. Poor you.

i don't see it that way.

> > i typically read a bunch of posts and go back later to respond.
>
> > unless something interesting sticks out that i want to respond to
> > right there and then.
>
> > i sometimes also get distracted by the new posts that pop up when i
> > refresh the google page.
>
> You are slow.

ouch!

> > if i haven't responded to a post of yours yet it certainly isn't
> > because i'm stumped by any of your questions. i'm not Alan, FFS.
>
> > post a google link to a post i've overlooked and i'll respond to it
> > right away.
>
> > otherwise, you'll just have to wait your turn.
>
> > > I'm not feeling particularly riduculed here.
>
> > well, you definitely should feel that way.
>
> Not at all. So far, you have said that 3+3=5,

yes.

and i've also said that under certain conditions 1 + 1 = 10

i don't see you whining about that.

it's a binary Cognitive Dissonance thinger with you, huh?

> and that there is
> equally good evidence for Socrates and Jesus,

yes.

> and that Church
> traditions should be treated as reliable evidence.

i've never made such an unqualified statement.

> The first is patently false,

bzzt!

does 1 + 1 = 10 ?

> the second and third demonstably foolish.

demonstably?

is that some sort of Fraudian slipperoony?

> > see also you're stumped stiflefest over in the Unicornian Math
> > tangent.
>
> > > When are you going to start making fun of atheists?
>
> > i've never stopped.
>
> Well, that's true, at least.

yep.

-$Zero...

i gracefully accept your full and unconditional surrender.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/cd14e8c742a529d6

http://CakeBatterProductions.com

boots

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 8:20:38 AM1/31/09

to

Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:

And you think I took that personally, in terms of taking umbrage? It
seems to have been a question addressed to my post, should I have left
it unanswered? I could have, of course.

Should I rather have said that when a thing is unknowable there may
still be usefulness in presuming it to be true or false and seeing
whether that position leads to some useful conclusion whereas the
opposite position does not?

To have said there is no point in taking a position on an issue that
is unknowable would have been false, and you asked if it has a point.
To "believe" something that is unknowable is what I would call an act
of unfounded faith, which, please forgive me, I consider equivalent to
gross stupidity.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "mad". It can certainly
set one outside the bounds of what is generally considered sane, but
does that make one dysfunctional? I am of the opinion that it does
not necessarily follow. I have a few years of experience with
questioning more or less everything and those years seem to include no
unusual dysfunctionalities. If anything it has made me more
functional rather than less.

> I'll take my chances and board an aeroplane,
>rather than make my own.

I don't expect ever to enter another airplane, they've gone to absurd
lengths with their security concerns. Frankly I find it more
enjoyable to travel by automobile anyway, but I tend to snooze
en-route (it's seldom me behind the wheel).

Jackson Pillock

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 8:28:29 AM1/31/09

to

No.

>
> and i've also said that under certain conditions 1 + 1 = 10

Okay.

>
> i don't see you whining about that.
>
> it's a binary Cognitive Dissonance thinger with you, huh?

No.

>
> > and that there is
> > equally good evidence for Socrates and Jesus,
>
> yes.

No there isn't. I have provided you with a link to quite a good
article addressing that very point. You ignored it.

>
> > and that Church
> > traditions should be treated as reliable evidence.
>
> i've never made such an unqualified statement.

On what basis do you accept the Church tradition that Simon Peter
founded the Church in Rome?

>
> > The first is patently false,
>
> bzzt!
>
> does 1 + 1 = 10 ?

Stop moving the goalposts. Three plus three does not equal five.

>
> > the second and third demonstably foolish.
>
> demonstably?
>
> is that some sort of Fraudian slipperoony?

It's a typo. Celebrate it; it's the only victory you're likely to
wring from me.

>
> > > see also you're stumped stiflefest over in the Unicornian Math
> > > tangent.
>
> > > > When are you going to start making fun of atheists?
>
> > > i've never stopped.
>
> > Well, that's true, at least.
>
> yep.

Then we agree.

$Zero

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 8:58:11 AM1/31/09

to

yes.

3+3=5 when um=0.5

and when um=0.0, 3+3=6

duh.

> > and i've also said that under certain conditions 1 + 1 = 10
>
> Okay.

hence your binary Cognitive Dissonancy.

> > i don't see you whining about that.
>
> > it's a binary Cognitive Dissonance thinger with you, huh?
>
> No.

yes.

behold:

you merely take it on faith that it's wrong
because you've never been taught otherwise by
your trusted brainwashers. having to use your
own mind has completely stifled you. but you're
not alone, there's always a shitload of people
who continue to believe that the earth is flat
until their trusted brainwashers instruct them
otherwise. see also Galileo, et al.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8d07042c69a13f3d

and:

it's doubly ironic that anyone who's read 1984 would
be so clueless about themselves being brainwashed.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/93a6015db2f17d6a

> > > and that there is
> > > equally good evidence for Socrates and Jesus,
>
> > yes.
>
> No there isn't. I have provided you with a link to quite a good
> article addressing that very point.

that's a matter of opinion.

> You ignored it.

i haven't ignored it.

> > > and that Church
> > > traditions should be treated as reliable evidence.
>
> > i've never made such an unqualified statement.
>
> On what basis do you accept the Church tradition that Simon Peter
> founded the Church in Rome?

it's ever so amusing to me that people who claim to be "objective" and
"rational" like yourself seem to think that the "evidence" for
Socrates is not some sort of "church tradition" merely because those
who provide you with said "evidence" don't call themselves a church.

yikes.

how gullible can you get.

let's go find the real truth in the Ministry of Truth!

yeah, baby.

and if we don't find it outlined there, we can always shuffle over to
the Ministry of Information.

> > > The first is patently false,
>
> > bzzt!
>
> > does 1 + 1 = 10 ?
>
> Stop moving the goalposts.

i haven't moved them one iota.

i've merely shown you an analogy which is applicable to your
blindspot, using things that you are already aware of.

> Three plus three does not equal five.

and one plus one does not equal ten.

however, three plus three does equal five when um equals one divided
by two.

i'm not claiming that Unicornian Math is another base like base two or
base ten.

it's another dimension of mathematical relationships where we've
accepted the premise that two plus two equals five AND three plus
three equals two plus two AND three is greater than two (by one).

therefore, under those specific conditions, three plus three equals
five because um equals one divided by two.

my binary analogy is presented to show you the general kneejerk error
of your thinkings.

if there were a better analogy that i could think of, i'd use it.

but that one serves the purpose pretty well.

it nicely illustrates the main problem. it shows that unless you take
the full context of the relationships of the numbers presented, you
end up with the wrong answer.

> > > the second and third demonstably foolish.
>
> > demonstably?
>
> > is that some sort of Fraudian slipperoony?
>
> It's a typo. Celebrate it; it's the only victory you're likely to
> wring from me.

oh ye of little faith.

> > > > see also you're stumped stiflefest over in the Unicornian Math
> > > > tangent.
>
> > > > > When are you going to start making fun of atheists?
>
> > > > i've never stopped.
>
> > > Well, that's true, at least.
>
> > yep.
>
> Then we agree.

no.

-$Zero...

honk honk!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/aa2c60396aae659d

http://RejectTheBrainwash.com

boots

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 8:57:59 AM1/31/09

to

"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:

>well, see, when _i_ respond, as a self-proclaimed creative genius, i
>usually have much more to say than you.

Oh, my. That makes me thankful that I'm a self-proclaimed madman and
demonstrably stupid.

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 12:28:34 PM1/31/09

to

On Jan 30, 11:51 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i mean, it's not like the RC church is some minor fringe mom and pop
> operation.

Ditto!

Glory be to Martin Luther.

Mark

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 12:34:16 PM1/31/09

to

On Jan 31, 5:14 am, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

> I'm not feeling particularly riduculed here. When are you going to
> start making fun of atheists?

I'll start the bidding...

Christians have December twenty fifth to mark their celebration.

Atheists have April the first.

----

What do you call an atheist wearing a tux in his coffin?

"All dressed up and no place to go!" Haaa Haaa

----

Show me a die hard atheist, and I'll show you a kid
that never did his homework.

----

Mark