Re: Why Fear and Detest the Atheist?

[Virgil]

In article <nKSdnZMmSeRviAfanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> 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'.

When one opts NOT to impale oneself on either of the horns of a dilemma,
according to Lorr one still has a horn up one's ass.

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Hatter wrote:

> On Jan 25, 12:01 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Hatterwrote:
>>
>>>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'.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> How many time do you have to be told "NO THAT IS NOT WHAT IS IN MY
> HEAD!"? Are you that incredible moronic to assume you have mind
> reading powers?

Apparently you don't know what is in your own head.

 

[Virgil]

In article <OdWdnamfRORY1AfanZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> > How many time do you have to be told "NO THAT IS NOT WHAT IS IN MY
> > HEAD!"? Are you that incredible moronic to assume you have mind
> > reading powers?
>
> Apparently you don't know what is in your own head.

Apparently Lorr does not really know what is in anyone's head,
including, but not limited to, his own.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:26:19 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<0P2dndfibstEywTanZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>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.

Your dishonest attempt to redefine words to what they do not mean is
noted. Apparently you are a slave of false witness.

--

"... There's glory for you."

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."

 

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:31:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<m7GdneMCdPy0xQTanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>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

 

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<nKSdnZMmSeRviAfanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com>:
>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'.

I don't believe you.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:42:48 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<OdWdnamfRORY1AfanZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Hatter wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 12:01 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Hatterwrote:
>>>
>>>>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'.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> How many time do you have to be told "NO THAT IS NOT WHAT IS IN MY
>> HEAD!"? Are you that incredible moronic to assume you have mind
>> reading powers?
>
>Apparently you don't know what is in your own head.

I don't believe you.