Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty

[Robibnikoff]

"PerfectlyAble" <jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
news:34f48f5b-c8ad-496e-9f4a-fbf09ae305ac@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>
>> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>
>> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.
>>
>> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.
>>
>> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.
>>
>> Can you say: non-sequitur?
>
> Not believing in God has never killed anyone.

If you tell the wrong person, it most certainly can.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557

 

[Michael Gray]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:37:46 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>
>"PerfectlyAble" <jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:34f48f5b-c8ad-496e-9f4a-fbf09ae305ac@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>>
>>> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>>
>>> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> :
>>>
>>> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>>> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>>> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.
>>>
>>> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.
>>>
>>> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.
>>>
>>> Can you say: non-sequitur?
>>
>> Not believing in God has never killed anyone.
>
>If you tell the wrong person, it most certainly can.

It's a philosopher, and therefore incapable of logical thought.

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:3grcq3tb4tijqva46jt9vok3vkl7ut1661@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:37:46 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"PerfectlyAble" <jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:34f48f5b-c8ad-496e-9f4a-fbf09ae305ac@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>>>
>>>> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>>>
>>>> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> :
>>>>
>>>> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>>>> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>>>> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.
>>>>
>>>> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.
>>>>
>>>> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.
>>>>
>>>> Can you say: non-sequitur?
>>>
>>> Not believing in God has never killed anyone.
>>
>>If you tell the wrong person, it most certainly can.
>
> It's a philosopher, and therefore incapable of logical thought.

And a total waste of time - Thanks for the heads up
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557

 

[PerfectlyAble]

On Feb 3, 2:45 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:14:37 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
>
>
> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Feb 2, 7:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:31:48 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> >> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> >> >> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
> >> >> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
> >> >> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.
>
> >> >> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.
>
> >> >> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.
>
> >> >> Can you say: non-sequitur?
>
> >> >Not believing in God has never killed anyone.
>
> >> Once again, history disagrees with you in the most uncertain terms.
> >> If you have never heard of anyone being exectuted for their lack of
> >> belief, then I can only suggest that you have failed history at most
> >> basic level.
>
> >> It starts with Socrates, and has not ended to this day.
>
> >Look believing and admiting openly to belief are too different
> >concerns.
>
> Agreed, but utterly irrelevant to your false claim that:
> "Not believing in God has never killed anyone".
> Or are you somehow suggesting that they were executed solely for their
> expression of disbelief?

People lie, get over it. People profess belief
in God daily yet cannot prove a God exists.
Now you suggest we can know they aren't deluded
and go further to suggest we can definitively
mind read their thoughts. Then you go on to
say that the murders of people who profess
some lack of belief must have killed because of
it. More mind reading on your part. People kill
for power, because they are sick and deluded.
People have never mind read anyone to assert
that someone definitively disbelieved in a God.
Its impossible to do.

Religious people do not kill unbelievers, atheists
regularly travel to Iran. Religious people, like
everyone else with a lack of moral fiber, kill
threats.



>
> I take it that you are a philosopher of some sort.
>
> >As for the global jihad, it has more to do with power
> >than with God, if they catch a US soldier and can trade
> >him for weapons they will, just as they will not kill
> >atheist that hurt their foriegn policy. Duh. Lack
> >of belief doesn't get you killed, You can still claim
> >to believe and get out of the way of the inquistion.
>
> But for those do not believe, and say so, their lack of belief
> combined with honesty results in them telling the truth, and therefore
> getting killed.
>
> You are being deliberately obtuse.

No, you suggest that belief can get you killed and
then give an example of someone who wants to martyr
themselves for professing a lack of belief. People
don't get themselves kills because of what they don't
believe. The heretics didn't die because they were
atheists they died because they were progressives
who stood against the theocrats, just as Christians
were regarded as atheists by Romans and thrown to the
lions. Its not a lack of belief that gets a person
killed, its the articulation of values that undermine
the status quo of unethical inbreed rulers. e.g. Iran.

Professing a positive belief in science gets you
killed. Holding the lack of belief in a God doesn't.
If all you have is a person looking to get themselves
killed means they died because they believed something,
now that just stupid, since the only belief they
need to accomplish their end is the belief in wanting to die.

 

[Michael Gordge]

On Jan 19, 9:30

 

[Michael Gray]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:31:43 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
<jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote:

:

>Religious people do not kill unbelievers

You have just confirmed my suspicion that you are either a compulsive
liar, or totally insane.

plonk

:

 

[PerfectlyAble]

On Feb 5, 9:03 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:31:43 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> :
>
> >Religious people do not kill unbelievers
>
> You have just confirmed my suspicion that you are either a compulsive
> liar, or totally insane.
>
> plonk
>
> :

Cheap.

 

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 6, 2:15

 

[PerfectlyAble]

On Feb 7, 10:23 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:15 pm, PerfectlyAble <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:03 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:31:43 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> > > <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > :
>
> > > >Religious people do not kill unbelievers
>
> > > You have just confirmed my suspicion that you are either a compulsive
> > > liar, or totally insane.
>
> > > plonk
>
> > > :
>
> > Cheap.
>
> But wholly accurate.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net

No, its not accurate because the liar didn't quote
the whole sentence. It was a cheap shot. For example,
There is a God, unless your being turthful... a
cheap liar would cut the sentence and suggest
I said "There is a God".

The qualification to the statement religious
people do not kill unbelievers because nobody can
really know what we actually believe. We as
the lame liar above can lie, misconstrue, context
and the plain simple fact is that mindreading is
essential not possible. And anyway people kill
people because they are a threat to them, it
wouldn't matter to a religious person whether
of not the threat was an atheist. Thirdly a
belief in the lack of a God is not a positive
belief, atheists believe (as best I can tell)
in positive beliefs that reject the notion of God.
The active and sole belief in the lack of a God is
actually a belief in God.

 

[Michael Gray]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:23:31 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Feb 6, 2:15 pm, PerfectlyAble <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 9:03 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:31:43 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>
>> > <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> > :
>>
>> > >Religious people do not kill unbelievers
>>
>> > You have just confirmed my suspicion that you are either a compulsive
>> > liar, or totally insane.
>>
>> > plonk
>>
>> > :
>>
>> Cheap.
>
>But wholly accurate.

In New Zealand, "Cheap Plonk" means extremely poor quality wine.
The sort that winos prefer.
I think that he is intimately familiar with the stuff.

 

[PerfectlyAble]

On Feb 7, 11:38 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:23:31 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 6, 2:15 pm, PerfectlyAble <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 9:03 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:31:43 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> >> > <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> > :
>
> >> > >
>
> >> > You have just confirmed my suspicion that you are either a compulsive
> >> > liar, or totally insane.
>
> >> > plonk
>
> >> > :
>
> >> Cheap.
>
> >But wholly accurate.
>
> In New Zealand, "Cheap Plonk" means extremely poor quality wine.
> The sort that winos prefer.
> I think that he is intimately familiar with the stuff.

Again you distribute ad homs. I never said the
things you say I said. Grow some integrity.