🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Jul 18, 3:58 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 17, 6:49 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 5:45 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 5:27 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 7:39 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 5:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 7:49 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 12:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 1:00 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:03 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 8:43�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 1:40 am, ben_dolan_...@reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 2:54 pm, ben_dolan_...@reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your analysis, Peter. �I was merely expanding on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement from an atheist to show where it was leading: �Atheists do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not believe anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not true, we believe you're a fuckin' moron... We even have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to take that as an article of faith. �The evidence isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelling. �We do have evidence that he's a liar. �So he could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting incredibly stupid, or more likely be stupid, it's impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell. �But the evidence for lies is overwhelming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, we believe he's as stupid as dog shit. �But we have evidence, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus no need of faith, that he's a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand your point, but I believe we have overwhelming evidence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both. Bobby is a classic newsgroup troll who desparately craves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention. Lying is an excellent way to get attention, although it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally means suffering considerable ridicule and insult in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I also believe he's rather unintelligent (as most newsgroup trolls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tend to be). He has shown a remarkable inability to absorb and integrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new information presented to him. There's no indication he reads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything outside of the few newsgroups he spends countless hours posting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in. And he has shown a breathtaking lack of self awareness and maturity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether about his ridiculous physics kookiness or his puerile religious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. Taken together these point to someone suffering from mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illness combined with a serious cognitive impairment, or as I prefer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think of it, he's a fuckin' moron...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I'll agree it's a good summary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al.  You are agreeing with someone who has a weak mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree or disagree with propositions.  Not people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your statements are wrong.  Profanity can be used by weak minds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to make a strong statement.  Just because someone uses profane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language, does not mean they have a "weak mind".  And what do you mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by "weak mind"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A weak mind is one that cannot deal with reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EG: Christians.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some Christians do use profanity, but the biggest promoters of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> profanity are atheists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet the minds that demonstrably don't deal with reality are
>>>>>>>>>>>> christians.  Please do keep up.
>>>>>>>>>>> Atheists are the people who are trying to make the Bible disappear.
>>>>>>>>>> Yep.  You've just demonstrated that you aren't dealing with reality.
>>>>>>>>>> Atheists are not trying to make the Bible disappear.
>>>>>>>>> Well, I think thy are.
>>>>>>>> Your thoughts have no bearing on reality.
>>>>>>>>>  That is one reason why they are so intrigued
>>>>>>>>> by Harry Potter books.
>>>>>>>> Um, no.  You still aren't getting it, are you?  Harry Potter is just a
>>>>>>>> convenient fiction story that is set on modern day Earth.  We could've
>>>>>>>> just as easily used ANY OTHER fiction story that is set on modern day Earth.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ******************************************************
>>>>>>>> *          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226            *
>>>>>>> Well, that is not going to happen when Harry Potter books were the
>>>>>>> books that outsold the Bible for a short time.
>>>>>> Um, no.  That's not the reason.
>>>>>> I could've easily used Fantastic Voyage, which was set in Washington DC.
>>>>>>   It even mentioned some buildings there.  Therefore, miniaturization is
>>>>>> real.
>>>>>> Right?
>>>>> Why don't you just take some time and decide for yourself?
>>>> Why don't you address the point rather than simply issuing glib
>>>> responses like the one above?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> There is no point that I can see.  He is claiming that these four
>>> books prove the Bible wrong in some way.
>> No, he's not saying that they prove it false, he's saying your example
>> of the tunnel offers no support for it. That's his point.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> So you are changing your mind again and saying that the tunnel does
> not exist.

Try again.  Perhaps you can read for comprehension this time.

-- 
******************************************************
*          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "I distrust those people who know so well what God *
*  wants them to do because I notice it always       *
*  coincides with their own desires."                *
*                                 --Susan B. Anthony *
******************************************************