K
Kadaitcha Man
Guest
"Kali" <kali@powder.keg> wrote in message
news:ftha6m$f8b$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> In <WPWdnQiHT-VoTWbanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Wizard Of
> Odds wiz@nospammicrosoft.com said:
>>
>>
>>"Kali" <kali@powder.keg> wrote in message
>>news:ftgfs2$ea4$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>> In <DKqdnX8aMeGhJ2banZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com>, Wizard Of
>>> Odds wiz@nospammicrosoft.com said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kali" <kali@powder.keg> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice that a lot of alt.atheists prefer to use "disbelief"
>>>>> over "belief" when describing their beliefs. It is as if they
>>>>> deny they are in possession of any beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>No, we do not deny possession of ANY beliefs; for instance, most of us
>>>>will
>>>>freely admit that we fervently believe we will have another beer!
>>>>
>>>>The question here is on one particular belief, YOUR irrational theist
>>>>religious belief (belief without evidence) in the alleged truth of the
>>>>tenets of your particular religion.
>>>
>>> LOL. Am I a theist because I disagree with "WE"?
>>>
>>You indicate that you are theist by joining in the theist argument that
>>there might be a deity. Capisce?
>
> You don't understand agnosticism, and I'm not in an educative
> mood at the moment.
>
>>>>Agnostics rightfully and unabashedly deny and repudiate, as immoral, any
>>>>contrary doctrine like Xianity or Islam for example, that there are
>>>>propositions like the tenets of Xianity or Islam for example, which men
>>>>ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence, as thoroughly
>>>>explained Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his
>>>>excoriation
>>>>of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism v Christianity"
>>>>http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
>>>>
>>>>"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
>>>>doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
>>>>without
>>>>logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
>>>>'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
>>>>Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
>>>
>>> Simpleton.
>>>
>>Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you establish that the tenets of any
>>religion are known to be true.
>
> Where have I indicated that I was attempting to defend any
> religion?
>
> I was too kind to call you a simpleton. You are an idiot.
Kadaitcha's Medical Dictionary:
===============================
An IDIOT is a person without understanding or ordinary mental capacity, one
who does not advance beyond the mental age of three years; distinguished
from a simpleton, who is capable of some mental and physical education. A
SIMPLETON is one who is congenitally weak-minded yet not incapable of
education; a mental defective not advancing beyond the mental age of seven
years. A MORON is a feeble-minded person of higher grade than a simpleton,
one who does not advance beyond the mental age of 12 years.
"No. 325. H. W., aged 17. This wretched being seems to be, like the
preceding ones, so deficient in nervous energy that he lies almost as
powerless as though he were a mass of jelly, without a bone or a muscle in
his composition. If his legs are pinched or irritated, he seems to try to
move them, but scarcely draws them up an inch. If flies alight upon his
face, he can hardly reach them with his hand. He sometimes rolls his head
from side to side with a languid motion, and this is the most he can do in
that way, for he cannot raise it up even to take food. He is fed like a sick
infant, with half-chewed victuals, from a spoon. He has no speech, and
apparently no knowledge of persons. When food is brought near to him,
something like a smile comes over his countenance; perhaps he is made aware
of it by the smell." (1848 description of an idiot, Samuel G. Howe; Rosen et
al. 38-39).
Yep, he's an idiot... must be closely related to gregvk.
--
PT.IndoSat Kupang Nusa Tenggara Timur Indonesia
news:ftha6m$f8b$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> In <WPWdnQiHT-VoTWbanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Wizard Of
> Odds wiz@nospammicrosoft.com said:
>>
>>
>>"Kali" <kali@powder.keg> wrote in message
>>news:ftgfs2$ea4$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>> In <DKqdnX8aMeGhJ2banZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com>, Wizard Of
>>> Odds wiz@nospammicrosoft.com said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kali" <kali@powder.keg> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice that a lot of alt.atheists prefer to use "disbelief"
>>>>> over "belief" when describing their beliefs. It is as if they
>>>>> deny they are in possession of any beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>No, we do not deny possession of ANY beliefs; for instance, most of us
>>>>will
>>>>freely admit that we fervently believe we will have another beer!
>>>>
>>>>The question here is on one particular belief, YOUR irrational theist
>>>>religious belief (belief without evidence) in the alleged truth of the
>>>>tenets of your particular religion.
>>>
>>> LOL. Am I a theist because I disagree with "WE"?
>>>
>>You indicate that you are theist by joining in the theist argument that
>>there might be a deity. Capisce?
>
> You don't understand agnosticism, and I'm not in an educative
> mood at the moment.
>
>>>>Agnostics rightfully and unabashedly deny and repudiate, as immoral, any
>>>>contrary doctrine like Xianity or Islam for example, that there are
>>>>propositions like the tenets of Xianity or Islam for example, which men
>>>>ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence, as thoroughly
>>>>explained Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his
>>>>excoriation
>>>>of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism v Christianity"
>>>>http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
>>>>
>>>>"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
>>>>doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
>>>>without
>>>>logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
>>>>'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
>>>>Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
>>>
>>> Simpleton.
>>>
>>Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you establish that the tenets of any
>>religion are known to be true.
>
> Where have I indicated that I was attempting to defend any
> religion?
>
> I was too kind to call you a simpleton. You are an idiot.
Kadaitcha's Medical Dictionary:
===============================
An IDIOT is a person without understanding or ordinary mental capacity, one
who does not advance beyond the mental age of three years; distinguished
from a simpleton, who is capable of some mental and physical education. A
SIMPLETON is one who is congenitally weak-minded yet not incapable of
education; a mental defective not advancing beyond the mental age of seven
years. A MORON is a feeble-minded person of higher grade than a simpleton,
one who does not advance beyond the mental age of 12 years.
"No. 325. H. W., aged 17. This wretched being seems to be, like the
preceding ones, so deficient in nervous energy that he lies almost as
powerless as though he were a mass of jelly, without a bone or a muscle in
his composition. If his legs are pinched or irritated, he seems to try to
move them, but scarcely draws them up an inch. If flies alight upon his
face, he can hardly reach them with his hand. He sometimes rolls his head
from side to side with a languid motion, and this is the most he can do in
that way, for he cannot raise it up even to take food. He is fed like a sick
infant, with half-chewed victuals, from a spoon. He has no speech, and
apparently no knowledge of persons. When food is brought near to him,
something like a smile comes over his countenance; perhaps he is made aware
of it by the smell." (1848 description of an idiot, Samuel G. Howe; Rosen et
al. 38-39).
Yep, he's an idiot... must be closely related to gregvk.
--
PT.IndoSat Kupang Nusa Tenggara Timur Indonesia
