Re: Definition of God

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com...
> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a
> > part of his religion.
> >
> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
> >
>
> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim.

Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of Virgil's and Sean's
religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity anyway, even
though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a part of their
religion.

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:U4ydnfMZc9YD7GvZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com...
>> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
>> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
>> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just
>> > a
>> > part of his religion.
>> >
>> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
>> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
>> >
>>
>> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim.
>
> Atheism is not a claim,

But atheists can and do make claims. When they do, they bear the burden of
proof.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AOidnRXEZpU99WvZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>
>> I don;t agree with princeton
>
> Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_
>
> <quote>
> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_

Which you've proven you don't understand regardless of how famous it is.

 

[Virgil]

In article <HM-dnbZju6VDnWvZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-F0397F.23250629082006@news.usenetmonster.com...
> > In article <sKGdnY43UM5ah2jZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
> > > >
> > > > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > > The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate
> > > > > any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical,
> > > > > systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding
> any
> > > > > statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement
> at
> > > > > all,
> > > > > including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the
> power
> > > > > behind
> > > > > physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on.
> > > >
> > > > Why do I have to?
> > >
> > > Because you are the one making that extraordinary claim of yours
> concerning
> > > the nature of things.
> >
> > Septic has made claims just as extraordinary
>
> Virgil is a liar.

There are others who are aware of Septic's postings under other false
names of those anti-theist claims, so that even if I were a liar,
there are others to testify that "Septic has made claims just as
extraordinary" is not a lie.

And Septic is a liar to claim that atheists cannot have the belief that
no gods exist or can exist. The ONLY belief that atheists like me cannot
have, and be atheists, is that there actually is some god.

 

[Virgil]

In article <aM2dndWVo7tHnGvZnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f51ef2@news.eftel.com...
> > >> > > No one knows for certain.
> > >> >
> > >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
> > >> > are
> > >> > famous, as Copi explains:
> > >> >
> > >> Your logic aside,
> > >
> > > Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking
> > > (logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right?
> > >
> > >> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact
> > >> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind?
> > >
> > > Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there
> is
> > > no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan.
> > >
> >
> > the term "logical fallacy" is a fallacy, a misnomer.
>
> You are mistaken, logical fallacy is a well-defined term in logic.

Septic, as usual, has hold of the wrong end of the stick.

The objection to "logical fallacy" is not to its meaning but to its
being applied improperly, which Septic, did, as usual.

So the only mistake here is Septic's.

and Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!

 

[Virgil]

In article <AOidnRXEZpU99WvZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>
> > I don;t agree with princeton
>
> Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_
>
> <quote>
> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
> criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
> mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
> Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
> sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
> Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
> moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
> are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance.

Note that there is a difference between the astronomers' "is in fact"
argument and anything less certain, which makes anything less certain
NOT an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Virgil]

In article <27qdnV4q8_Z78mvZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>
> > I reject your rules.
>
> Rules are for ball games and such.

Logic has rules, and those, like Septic, who ignore them when they are
inconvenient, are illogical.




>This is not about rules, this is about
> the principles of valid argument
The statements of those "principles" are rules to be followed by those,
unlike Septic, who wish to make valid arguments.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

Or does Septic wish claim that valid argument is without rules?

 

[Virgil]

In article <U4ydnfMZc9YD7GvZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com...
> > > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
> > > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
> > > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a
> > > part of his religion.
> > >
> > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
> > >
> >
> > I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim.
>
> Atheism is not a claim

Septic falsely implies by his claim that atheists never make claims.

But atheists make claims. Septic above has just claimed that atheism is
not a claim.


And the religious Gnostic anti-theist version of atheism, like Septic's,
tends to make a lot of claims, and not all of them true.

 

[chazwin]

Sean wrote:
> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a
> > part of his religion.
> >
> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
> >
>
> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. ;-)
>
> imho "Atheism is characterized by a belief in the non-existence of gods."
>
> Other people's beliefs in a God or creator, and religions in general has
> very little to do with that. So describing it as an absence of belief is a
> comparative term about others, and not about your own particular views and
> how those were arrived at.
>
> If the only way you can accurautely describe your own pov is in relation to
> others pov, then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at
> how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or isn't.
> Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs. That's not a
> criticism, just an observation about human nature and what all people do.
> Atheists in general really aren;t that different than everybody else. imho.

The point about "atheist" is that it implies a negative. There is a
perfectly good word for someone who positively rejects the notion of a
belief in god: antitheist, and another one who has declared for "i
don't know": agnostic.
"A - theist" means NO belief in god. It is most bizzarre, I find, that
those that insist there is a god usually insist that "atheist" is some
kind of faith belief system - this I find utterly strange, but probably
reflective of the type of thought processes that form the theist
position.

Generally I classify myself as atheist, and normally give no thought
whatsoever to the topic. That is, until I read a thread which causes me
to think about why I have rejected the god notion. At this point I
become antitheist and prepare myself to produce arguments as to why I
think the god idea is utterly incoherant.
But I insist that I have no "system of belief" which comprises atheism.
If someone tries to convince me that "wheat is purple" and I attempt to
argue against it, I do not say that i am an "Apurplewheatist".

 

[Sean]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:27qdnV4q8_Z78mvZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>
>> I reject your rules.
>
> Rules are for ball games and such. This is not about rules, this is about
> the principles of valid argument that apply to arguments made by anyone,
> even you. Study up, or prepare to be ignored:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
>
>

I think you may be the one who needs to polish up on logic and rational
thought, not to mention the "rules" in basic communication.

Ignore me, feel free. ;-))

>

 

[Sean]

"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157008855.756390.181760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
>> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
>> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just
>> > a
>> > part of his religion.
>> >
>> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
>> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
>> >
>>
>> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. ;-)
>>
>> imho "Atheism is characterized by a belief in the non-existence of gods."
>>
>> Other people's beliefs in a God or creator, and religions in general has
>> very little to do with that. So describing it as an absence of belief is
>> a
>> comparative term about others, and not about your own particular views
>> and
>> how those were arrived at.
>>
>> If the only way you can accurautely describe your own pov is in relation
>> to
>> others pov, then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at
>> how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or isn't.
>> Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs. That's not a
>> criticism, just an observation about human nature and what all people do.
>> Atheists in general really aren;t that different than everybody else.
>> imho.
>
> The point about "atheist" is that it implies a negative. There is a
> perfectly good word for someone who positively rejects the notion of a
> belief in god: antitheist, and another one who has declared for "i
> don't know": agnostic.
> "A - theist" means NO belief in god. It is most bizzarre, I find, that
> those that insist there is a god usually insist that "atheist" is some
> kind of faith belief system - this I find utterly strange, but probably
> reflective of the type of thought processes that form the theist
> position.
>
> Generally I classify myself as atheist, and normally give no thought
> whatsoever to the topic. That is, until I read a thread which causes me
> to think about why I have rejected the god notion. At this point I
> become antitheist and prepare myself to produce arguments as to why I
> think the god idea is utterly incoherant.
> But I insist that I have no "system of belief" which comprises atheism.
> If someone tries to convince me that "wheat is purple" and I attempt to
> argue against it, I do not say that i am an "Apurplewheatist".
>

Well I enjoy the way you put things! ;-)

and I do take the point about a-theist/anti-theist that you are making, and
that's how you do see it, and am willing to say that without any reactive
clap trap.

Let me be clear that I am not arguing the point, or saying you are wrong
about your views on atheism/god/creator, and how you arrive at those. They
are valid, for you. and I accept that without any problems at all. I am not
insisting on anything either.

My distinction could be explained by saying that I am not claiming a "system
of belief" as such .... maybe have another look at this part of what I said
to the other chap and I'll highlight a few keys words

then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at
>> how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or
>> isn't.
>> Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs.

and i'll clarify that again by saying a " whole pile of personal beliefs
....."

You should notice that I didn;t use the word "atheist" just above. I am
speaking to a deeper level than just a non-belief or rejection of others
religious beliefs. Can you see what I mean?

as a rough analogy, I'd call athesism an F18 fighter jet. I am speaking
about the aircraft carrier that supports the fighter jet. I thinks that
fair, given ur "Apurplewheatist". hehehe

 

[Sean]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:U4ydnfMZc9YD7GvZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com...
>> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
>> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
>> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just
>> > a
>> > part of his religion.
>> >
>> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
>> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
>> >
>>
>> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim.
>
> Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of Virgil's and
> Sean's
> religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity anyway, even
> though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a part of their
> religion.
>

If you say so. <smile>

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Sean]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AOidnRXEZpU99WvZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>
>> I don;t agree with princeton
>
> Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_
>

Gee, I'm blushing at your selective snipping.

Quote: I don;t agree with princeton, but only from a semantic pov.

Did I say I rejected logic? No. I also didn't say that argument ad
ignorantiam was a fallacy. But thanks for the quotes.


> <quote>
> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
> criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
> mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
> telescope.
> Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a
> perfect
> sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued
> against
> Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
> moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
> are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
> which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
> false!
>
>
> Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
> same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
> transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
> equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
> crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
> of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
> prove false.
> </quote>
> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
>
>
> [In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
> 'might
> be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
>
>
>
>

 

[Sean]

correction sorry, forgot NOT ...

I also didn't say that argument ad
> ignorantiam was NOT a fallacy.>

 

[Daniel T.]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything
> > > about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula.
> > > Does that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The
> > > existance of microscopic organisms was not recognized for
> > > centuries before the invention of the microscope. Does that
> > > mean they did not exist before they were discovered?
> >
> > These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic
> > organisms until after they were discovered.
> >
> They had no way to observe or detect such organisms. Nevertheless,
> they were very real.

Right.

> > Why then do you talk so glibly about the supernatural?
>
> A few centuries ago, illness was believed to be caused by
> supernatural enities, ie evil spirits, spells cast, the evil eye
> etc. But today we understand that invisiable (to the naked eye)
> microbes can and do cause illness and death. Nothing has changed
> except our understanding and our ability to incorporate our
> knowledge into prevention and cures.
>
> An out of touch person seeing a TV for the first time might see
> this as magic or supernatural. Many intelligent Americans have
> absolutely no idea how TVs works, but would feel highly superior to
> the superstitious primitive who might think it works by magic, but
> has only a slightly better understanding of its workings. The fact
> that science doesn't know how to test for the supernatural could
> possibility be because of its shortcomings at the present time.

Exactly. So many times, things that we thought were supernatural turned
out to have natural explanations. Are you sure you want to assert that
the things you currently think are supernatural will never have any sort
of natural explanation? Are you like that "out of touch" TV watcher?

> > > Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which
> > > come true.
> >
> > People win the lottery too.
>
> Sure, but this proves only good luck.

That's all intuition is...

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:12:23 GMT, "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything
>> > > about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula.
>> > > Does that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The
>> > > existance of microscopic organisms was not recognized for
>> > > centuries before the invention of the microscope. Does that
>> > > mean they did not exist before they were discovered?
>> >
>> > These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic
>> > organisms until after they were discovered.
>> >
>> They had no way to observe or detect such organisms. Nevertheless,
>> they were very real.
>
>Right.

And unlike God, they weren't plucked out of thin air, but were
announced after they had been observed under a primitive microscope,

Why do so many of them use this kind of invalid analogy?

What do they imagine it tells us?

>> > Why then do you talk so glibly about the supernatural?
>>
>> A few centuries ago, illness was believed to be caused by
>> supernatural enities, ie evil spirits, spells cast, the evil eye
>> etc. But today we understand that invisiable (to the naked eye)
>> microbes can and do cause illness and death. Nothing has changed
>> except our understanding and our ability to incorporate our
>> knowledge into prevention and cures.

And the knowledge was acquired through a process of observation and
investigation.

Perhaps the poster would like to explain the process of observation
and investigation that led to the conclusion of God, without any
presumptions about it.

>> An out of touch person seeing a TV for the first time might see
>> this as magic or supernatural. Many intelligent Americans have
>> absolutely no idea how TVs works, but would feel highly superior to
>> the superstitious primitive who might think it works by magic, but
>> has only a slightly better understanding of its workings. The fact
>> that science doesn't know how to test for the supernatural could
>> possibility be because of its shortcomings at the present time.

But demonstrate a TV to them and they will accept it.

Perhaps the poster should demonstrate this thing he calls "God" in the
same way. Point to it.

>Exactly. So many times, things that we thought were supernatural turned
>out to have natural explanations. Are you sure you want to assert that
>the things you currently think are supernatural will never have any sort
>of natural explanation? Are you like that "out of touch" TV watcher?
>
>> > > Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which
>> > > come true.
>> >
>> > People win the lottery too.
>>
>> Sure, but this proves only good luck.
>
>That's all intuition is...

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qAnJg.20085$y7.3829@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4llrgpF2gpnvU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> > news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>> >>
>> > I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
> something
>> > wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> > I could never deny him.
>>
>> So what? Why should anyone give a hoot about what you'd do?
>>
> This wasn't addressed to you!

Who gives a ****? Welcome to Usenet, idiot.

--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4CnJg.20088$y7.8735@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>> >>
>> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
> something
>> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> >I could never deny him.
>>
>> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
>>
> I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is
> real to me!

Why should anyone give a **** about what you'd do?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Dan Wood]

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4locfgF2svmnU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4CnJg.20088$y7.8735@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> > news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
> >> >>
> >> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
> > something
> >> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> >> >I could never deny him.
> >>
> >> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
> >>
> > I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is
> > real to me!
>
> Why should anyone give a **** about what you'd do?
>
And this is concern to you - why?

Dan Wood, DDS
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
> #1557
>
>

 

[Dan Wood]

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4locecF2t5gkU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qAnJg.20085$y7.3829@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> > news:4llrgpF2gpnvU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
> >> >>
> >> > I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
> > something
> >> > wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> >> > I could never deny him.
> >>
> >> So what? Why should anyone give a hoot about what you'd do?
> >>
> > This wasn't addressed to you!
>
> Who gives a ****? Welcome to Usenet, idiot.
>
Thank you - fool!
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
> #1557
>
>