Re: Why Fear and Detest the Atheist?

Michelle Malkin , 01.24.2008:

> For slavery to exist, all you need is one slave.
> Let it be Roy. I'm sure he'll be willing to do
> all the dirty work, since it's part of the
> physical nature of the world and demanded
> by his God.

Nah - wasn't white the masters race?

greets
richie

X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.philosophy
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
29) Jethro Tull - Too old to rock & roll...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGWG_gCRw20&feature=related
 
Free Lunch wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
> <mLGdnbYsINYHsQXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
>>>Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
>>><Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>>>>
>>>>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>>>>\
>>>
>>>
>>>But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
>>>Morality of Roy's God.
>>
>>No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.
>
>
> That is an interesting assertion. Too bad you can't provide any evidence
> to support it.

Name a physical or human condition that is free of slavery.
 
Michelle Malkin wrote:

> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:ng0hp3hp1ul5l1vlimrp2bpsas3v9vmlen@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>><mLGdnbYsINYHsQXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
>>>>Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
>>>><Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>>>>>
>>>>>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>>>>>\
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
>>>>Morality of Roy's God.
>>>
>>>No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.
>>
>>That is an interesting assertion. Too bad you can't provide any evidence
>>to support it.
>
>
> For slavery to exist, all you need is one slave.
> Let it be Roy. I'm sure he'll be willing to do
> all the dirty work, since it's part of the
> physical nature of the world and demanded
> by his God.

Name a physical or human condition that is free of slavery.
 
Free Lunch wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:16:01 -0800, in alt.atheism
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
> <mLGdnbEsINa9sAXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:32:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>><WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:48:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>><KbWdnQ30CtwnHgjanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here is one example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Exodus 21
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But
>>>>>>>in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he
>>>>>>>comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes,
>>>>>>>she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears
>>>>>>>him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
>>>>>>>master, and only the man shall go free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and
>>>>>>>children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him
>>>>>>>before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
>>>>>>>pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
>>>>>>>menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her
>>>>>>>for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell
>>>>>>>her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects
>>>>>>>her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he
>>>>>>>marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food,
>>>>>>>clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these
>>>>>>>three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is not a shred of immorality in the above. What transpires is the
>>>>>>giving of law that mitigates the brutal aspects of slavery that is
>>>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So, you claim that slavery is moral in your 'absolute morality' system.
>>>>
>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery, slavery that is
>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>
>>>
>>>Once again, you prove that you are a moral relativist. You endorse
>>>slavery. Slavery is not inherent in the human condition.
>>
>>Name a human condition that is free of slavery.
>
>
> Slavery is illegal

Irrelevant.

and extremely rare in the Western nations.

Where exactly among the 'Western nations' is it rare'?

>
>
>>>>>Your morality stinks. It is vile, pathetic, excuses any evil. You are
>>>>>more corrupt than a dead deer on the side of the road on a 100 F day.
>>>>>You are only good for maggots and flies to feast on.
>>>>
>>>>You are a denier of reality.
>>>
>>>Your fake morality is clearly part of that reality.
>>
>>Shallow suits you.
>
>
> Even the simplest ideas are too hard for you to grasp.

So you pray.
 
In article <6K2dnXvGtKzbOwXanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Name a physical or human condition that is free of slavery.

Isolation. You should try it.
 
In article <6K2dnXrGtKwBOwXanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> > For slavery to exist, all you need is one slave.
> > Let it be Roy. I'm sure he'll be willing to do
> > all the dirty work, since it's part of the
> > physical nature of the world and demanded
> > by his God.
>
> Name a physical or human condition that is free of slavery.

Isolation. Which condition would improve Lorr no end.
 
In article <WcudnTWck5tTOgXanZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Free Lunch wrote:
>

> > Slavery is illegal
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> and extremely rare in the Western nations.
>
> Where exactly among the 'Western nations' is it rare'?

In the US. Fewer that one case a year is reported in the US.

> >
> > Even the simplest ideas are too hard for you to grasp.
>
> So you pray.

So Lorr preys.
 
Hatter wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <hPqdnVhANJvfxgranZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@comcast.com>,
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Only because it prove your point is wrong. You dance aside and fail to
>>>>stand up to the light of reason. You are a coward.
>>
>>>You are a moron, expecting substantive answers to nonsense questions.
>>
>>Lorr is a hyrdocephalic idiot to so misrepresent things.
>
>
> I certainly do not understand his basis for calling my question
> "nonsense" other than it undermines his position.
>
> Are you aware of X? Before I mentioned it, did you lack belief,
> disbelieve, or believe in X?
>
> Seems straightforward and sensible to me.

It is nonsensical to ask whether one believes or disbelieves in X before
the concept of X exists.
 
In article <KYCdnZQn2NJEYAXanZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Hatter wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <hPqdnVhANJvfxgranZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@comcast.com>,
> >> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Only because it prove your point is wrong. You dance aside and fail to
> >>>>stand up to the light of reason. You are a coward.
> >>
> >>>You are a moron, expecting substantive answers to nonsense questions.
> >>
> >>Lorr is a hyrdocephalic idiot to so misrepresent things.
> >
> >
> > I certainly do not understand his basis for calling my question
> > "nonsense" other than it undermines his position.
> >
> > Are you aware of X? Before I mentioned it, did you lack belief,
> > disbelieve, or believe in X?
> >
> > Seems straightforward and sensible to me.
>
> It is nonsensical to ask whether one believes or disbelieves in X before
> the concept of X exists.

No more so that to insist that one must either believe in existence or
believe in nonexistence after the concept exists but prior to evidencial
justification for one or the other.

When a scientific conjecture involves a new concept, one neither
believes in the concept nor disbelieves in it until there is enough
evidence one way or the other to justify a choice.
 
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:52:55 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<6K2dnXvGtKzbOwXanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <mLGdnbYsINYHsQXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
>>>>Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
>>>><Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>>>>>
>>>>>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>>>>>\
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
>>>>Morality of Roy's God.
>>>
>>>No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.
>>
>>
>> That is an interesting assertion. Too bad you can't provide any evidence
>> to support it.
>
>Name a physical or human condition that is free of slavery.

How many times are you going to repeat that inane question.

I've answered once, but let me add: hunger.
 
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:59:27 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<WcudnTWck5tTOgXanZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:16:01 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <mLGdnbEsINa9sAXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:32:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>><WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:48:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>><KbWdnQ30CtwnHgjanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here is one example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Exodus 21
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But
>>>>>>>>in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he
>>>>>>>>comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes,
>>>>>>>>she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears
>>>>>>>>him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
>>>>>>>>master, and only the man shall go free.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and
>>>>>>>>children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him
>>>>>>>>before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
>>>>>>>>pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
>>>>>>>>menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her
>>>>>>>>for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell
>>>>>>>>her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects
>>>>>>>>her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he
>>>>>>>>marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food,
>>>>>>>>clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these
>>>>>>>>three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is not a shred of immorality in the above. What transpires is the
>>>>>>>giving of law that mitigates the brutal aspects of slavery that is
>>>>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, you claim that slavery is moral in your 'absolute morality' system.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery, slavery that is
>>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Once again, you prove that you are a moral relativist. You endorse
>>>>slavery. Slavery is not inherent in the human condition.
>>>
>>>Name a human condition that is free of slavery.
>>
>>
>> Slavery is illegal
>
>Irrelevant.
>
> and extremely rare in the Western nations.
>
>Where exactly among the 'Western nations' is it rare'?

Japan, Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada, UK, rest of EU.

Maybe you don't know what slavery is? That may be the only reason you
are pursuing this pathetic line of argument.

>>>>>>Your morality stinks. It is vile, pathetic, excuses any evil. You are
>>>>>>more corrupt than a dead deer on the side of the road on a 100 F day.
>>>>>>You are only good for maggots and flies to feast on.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are a denier of reality.
>>>>
>>>>Your fake morality is clearly part of that reality.
>>>
>>>Shallow suits you.
>>
>>
>> Even the simplest ideas are too hard for you to grasp.
>
>So you pray.

Why would I? Who would I pray to?
 
Free Lunch wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:52:55 -0800, in alt.atheism
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
> <6K2dnXvGtKzbOwXanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>><mLGdnbYsINYHsQXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
>>>>>Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
>>>>><Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>>>>>>\
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
>>>>>Morality of Roy's God.
>>>>
>>>>No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is an interesting assertion. Too bad you can't provide any evidence
>>>to support it.
>>
>>Name a physical or human condition that is free of slavery.
>
>
> How many times are you going to repeat that inane question.
>
> I've answered once, but let me add: hunger.

Hunger is a prime slave master.

Try again.
 
Free Lunch wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:59:27 -0800, in alt.atheism
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
> <WcudnTWck5tTOgXanZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:16:01 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>><mLGdnbEsINa9sAXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:32:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>><WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:48:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>><KbWdnQ30CtwnHgjanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here is one example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Exodus 21
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But
>>>>>>>>>in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he
>>>>>>>>>comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes,
>>>>>>>>>she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears
>>>>>>>>>him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
>>>>>>>>>master, and only the man shall go free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and
>>>>>>>>>children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him
>>>>>>>>>before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
>>>>>>>>>pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
>>>>>>>>>menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her
>>>>>>>>>for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell
>>>>>>>>>her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects
>>>>>>>>>her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he
>>>>>>>>>marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food,
>>>>>>>>>clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these
>>>>>>>>>three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is not a shred of immorality in the above. What transpires is the
>>>>>>>>giving of law that mitigates the brutal aspects of slavery that is
>>>>>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, you claim that slavery is moral in your 'absolute morality' system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery, slavery that is
>>>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Once again, you prove that you are a moral relativist. You endorse
>>>>>slavery. Slavery is not inherent in the human condition.
>>>>
>>>>Name a human condition that is free of slavery.
>>>
>>>
>>>Slavery is illegal
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>>
>> and extremely rare in the Western nations.
>>
>>Where exactly among the 'Western nations' is it rare'?
>
>
> Japan, Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada, UK, rest of EU. >
> Maybe you don't know what slavery is? That may be the only reason you
> are pursuing this pathetic line of argument.

slav
 
In article <0P2dndfibstEywTanZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Free Lunch wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:52:55 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in

> >>Name a physical or human condition that is free of slavery.
> >
> >
> > How many times are you going to repeat that inane question.
> >
> > I've answered once, but let me add: hunger.
>
> Hunger is a prime slave master.
>
> Try again.

It is equally a master of the non-slave. And that sort of thing is not
what your puny Pentateuch was talking about.
 
In article <m7GdneMCdPy0xQTanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:



> Who would I pray to?
>
> Your self.

So Lorr does it to himself already.
 
Hatter wrote:

> On Jan 24, 4:06 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Hatterwrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <hPqdnVhANJvfxgranZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@comcast.com>,
>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Only because it prove your point is wrong. You dance aside and fail to
>>>>>>stand up to the light of reason. You are a coward.
>>
>>>>>You are a moron, expecting substantive answers to nonsense questions.
>>
>>>>Lorr is a hyrdocephalic idiot to so misrepresent things.
>>
>>>I certainly do not understand his basis for calling my question
>>>"nonsense" other than it undermines his position.
>>
>>>Are you aware of X? Before I mentioned it, did you lack belief,
>>>disbelieve, or believe in X?
>>
>>>Seems straightforward and sensible to me.
>>
>>It is nonsensical to ask whether one believes or disbelieves in X before
>>the concept of X exists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Exactly, but that wasn't my question!...the natural answer is that
> neither believed or disbelieved, but that you lacked belief. Hence
> disproving your notion that there is no such thing as lack of belief.

There is no such thing as 'lack of belief' before the fact.

>
> I disbelieve in Zues, I disbelieve in the common portrayal of Yahweh,
> but as to the amorphous concept "god" I lack belief because it is so
> vauge and unprovable because the concept is so lacking definition or
> substance that it effectively doesn't exist.

In other words: you've made the choice between belief and disbelief...
you've opted to disbelieve. That is not 'lack of belief'.
 
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:47:16 -0700, Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote:

>In article <hPqdnVhANJvfxgranZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Only because it prove your point is wrong. You dance aside and fail to
>> > stand up to the light of reason. You are a coward.
>>
>> You are a moron, expecting substantive answers to nonsense questions.
>
>Lorr is a hyrdocephalic idiot to so misrepresent things.

He needs a tap on the head.
 

Similar threads

A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
126
Backlink Hut
B
M
XEvil 6.0 [Beta-8]: the best application for ReCaptcha and hCaptcha solving is available !
Replies
0
Views
206
MaryIntork2556
M
Back
Top