🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 14, 3:49 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 3:47�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>
>
>
> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 4:58 pm, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:53:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >rbwinn wrote:
> > > >> On Jul 11, 5:18?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
> > > >>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a...@b.c> wrote in messagenews:1215765710.4836.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> > > >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Jul 10, 5:20?am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Alex W. wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>>>>news:08134c4b-46c5-454f-9a5f-47756eddfd59@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >>>>>>> Without religion to oppose, atheists would do nothing at all.
> > > >>>>>> Thats not true. They just would walk away from any discussion on the
> > > >>>>>> subject thankfully, and get on with living, and in some case, trying to
> > > >>>>>> understand the extraordinary universe we seem to find ourselves in.
> > > >>>>>> Really the transition fom a Gaia type animism picture of the universe,
> > > >>>>>> to a personalised supernatural creator and law giver, to an impersonal
> > > >>>>>> set of amoral laws..is not as abrupt as the fanboys would like to think.
> > > >>>>>> What is unusual, historically, is the fanatical faith needed to maintain
> > > >>>>>> the concept of a personal and moral God, in the face of Reason.
> > > >>>>>> Mediaevally speaking, no one questioned that the world and events moved
> > > >>>>>> according to some vast and ineffable and mysterious pattern, and the
> > > >>>>>> concept of a supernatural intelligence and a plan, was pretty
> > > >>>>>> reasonable..until science started uncovering the rules, which turned out
> > > >>>>>> to be mindlessly simple, totally impersonal and implacable, and
> > > >>>>>> impervious to personal appeal. And no evidence of intelligence at all.
> > > >>>>>> Note that none of this necessarily negates the proposition that faith,
> > > >>>>>> belief, prayer, and a live lived AS IF there were an afterlife,is not a
> > > >>>>>> Good Thing for people and civilisations.
> > > >>>>>> But none of these even indicate that what is believed in must of
> > > >>>>>> necessity be true.
> > > >>>>>> Archers were able to hit targets long before Newton identified the Force
> > > >>>>>> of Gravity.
> > > >>>>>> Understanding of the presumed science behind phenonmena is no
> > > >>>>>> pre-requisite for learning to deal with them. Any ad-hoc theory that has
> > > >>>>>> pragmatic use will do.
> > > >>>>>> If you look at religion in that light, it makes a lot of sense.
> > > >>>>>> Mired in dogma however, the fanatical Theist simply persists in the
> > > >>>>>> useless, long past its sell-by date.
> > > >>>>>>> ==========
> > > >>>>>>> ..... other than get on with our lives ....- Hide quoted text -
> > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> > > >>>>> If atheists want to believe that they are not intelligent, I see no
> > > >>>>> problem with that.
> > > >>>>> Robert B. Winn
> > > >>>> And how is that in any way relevant to what I posted?
> > > >>> You expect relevance from this moron?
> > > >>> He can't even manage coherence, logic or truth.
>
> > > >>> Smiler,
> > > >>> The godless one
> > > >>> a.a.# 2279- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> Atheists believe that intelligence is nothing more than electrical
> > > >> impulses.
>
> > > >No, they do not. Another lie from the Prince of Lies.
>
> > > I don't think Bobby is actually lying. I think he really is that
> > > stupid.
>
> > Bobby is demonstrably lying. �Something not easily proven you may
> > think. �But he clearly lies about what others post in alt.atheism
> > regularly, and that's transferable and transfered evidence.
>
> > AL- Hide quoted text -
>
> Al, you should have gone into psychiatry.  I'll tell you the first
> thing I noticed about psychiatrists.  I escaped from a V.A. hospital
> in Tacoma, Washington, and was later put in a V.A. hospital in
> Gulfport Mississippi.  Wouldn't you think that the psychiatrist in
> Gulfport would ask something different from the psychiatrist in
> Tacoma?  The questions were identical.  That was when I started to pay
> attention to psychiatrists.  Before that happened, I was not even
> worried about psychiatrists.  So I ran a few little tests of my own.
> Do not ever joke around with a psychiatrist.  However, you are not a
> psychiatrist, Al.  Neither are any of the rest of these atheists.  You
> would like to be, though.
> Robert B. Winn

And this would be the sort of thing I was talking about.  What you say
has nothing to do with the post you respond to.  In this case you
don't outright lie about what I said, but you still manage to go off
on what is not so much a tangent as a completely different topic.

In answer to your concerns, Psychiatrists ask the same questions
because they use standardized tests a lot of the time.  It's difficult
to guage human minds with a human mind, so the use of standard
questions relieves some of the difficulties.  And some of the
psychiatrists' biases.
No, Robby, I'm not a psychiatrist, and neither am I a doctor of
medicine.  And no, I never wanted to be one of either of those.  I'd
actually be surprised if there wasn't one on the newsgroup though.
What makes you so sure there aren't any?

Al