Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gdbnr826ucuab@corp.supernews.com... > Bryan Olson wrote: > >> Virgil wrote: >>> "Your Logic Tutor" wrote: >>> >>>> Why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad >>>> ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof >>>> there isn't >>> >>> What we agnostics say is that agnostics should admit that there might or >>> might not be a lot of things for which there is no proof either way. >> >> For example, there may or may not be mermaids. Oceans are big. >> We haven't nearly explored them well enough to rule out that >> half-hot-babe-half-fish beings are swimming around there >> somewhere. >> >>> Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position >>> demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally. >> >> Even though I cannot prove the non-existence of mermaids, I'm >> not exactly unbiased on the issue. If a child with a an interest >> in marine biology were to ask me whether they are real, I don't >> think I'd say that the question is unresolved. >> >> > > There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or > A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and > take over the planet. > > As agnostics, You're not an agonostic. You're a full fledged anti-theist. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gdbdmfn4l2sb4@corp.supernews.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message >> news:12gc7o7gk46n768@corp.supernews.com... >>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> You lie and I correct your lies. >>>>> You are the liar not me. >>>> >>>> You are a child. >>> >>> All you have is ad hominem attacks? >> >> All you have is re-pasted dreck. > > I post facts, Not to date. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > ... the neutrality of "No proof either way" That is not in any way, shape, or form anything that could reasonably be called neutrality, the fact of the matter is that you are demanding proof there is no god when by all rights the non-believers have NOTHING (no thing) to prove in this case, only theists do. Get it? Google burden of proof. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:45063f8b$0$24170$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:JpednaZz0b8pm5vYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4505fc4e$0$24211$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> > > >> >> ... no proof either way. > >> > > >> > <BITCHSLAP>..... > >> > >> "No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance ... > > > > <BITCHSLAP> > > > > "No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God," > > Which is not an argument. Yes it definitely is, it is the same old lame old logical fallacy for which you theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains: <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.] Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:GJOdnTWNNsvVd5vYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> ... the neutrality of "No proof either way" > > That is not in any way, shape, or form anything that could reasonably be > called neutrality, Of course it is. The admission that there is no evidence for something combines both honesty and the willingness to suspend judgment. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:zoGdnSe0GK0ZdpvYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:45063f8b$0$24170$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:JpednaZz0b8pm5vYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:4505fc4e$0$24211$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> >> > >> >> >> ... no proof either way. >> >> > >> >> > <BITCHSLAP>..... >> >> >> >> "No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance ... >> > >> > <BITCHSLAP> >> > >> > "No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God," >> >> Which is not an argument. > > Yes it definitely is, Which includes there is no proof that there is a god. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <GJOdnTWNNsvVd5vYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > ... the neutrality of "No proof either way" > > That is not in any way, shape, or form anything that could reasonably be > called neutrality, the fact of the matter is that you are demanding proof > there is no god when by all rights the non-believers have NOTHING (no thing) > to prove in this case, only theists do. Get it? Google burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with those trying to establish the truth of a claim. If those who, like Septic, claim that gods are impossible, wish to establish that claim, they bear the burden of establishing it. We who are only claiming absence of any claim re existence of gods need do no more than declare that absence. Quote
Guest Bryan Olson Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 wcb wrote: > There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or > A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and > take over the planet. Your parents put out the candy and eggs. You can relax about the leprechauns; it's all in your head. The gods? Well, I've counted all I could find and my total is much lower. > As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things > that might or might not be. In most cases we're asked to admit such things, we should instead roll our eyes and say something like "get a grip on reality". We do not require the exhaustive list of what is real merely to recognize what is myth. -- --Bryan Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <k8mdnbKkU8iZdZvYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things > > that might or might not be. > > Contrary to what Virgil and GG are saying, agnosticism does NOT entail > agreeing with the theists that there might be a god anyway It is impossible to "agree with theists" in support of any such statement so directly contrary to all theism. Theists say "must be", gnostic anti-theists like Septic say "can't be", we agnostics say "might or might not be as far a we know". Why Septic feels compelled to lie so vociferously about either the theist position or the agnostic one, he does not explain. > > "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', http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html That's us! We reject both theist and anti-theist claims of certainty, preferring to remain undecided in the absence of logically satisfactory evidence either way. Septic should try it, he might find he likes it. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <aqednc6bR_NRfpvYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," in the following, is there? The declaration "the moon IS IN FACT a perfect sphere" is certainly certain. > <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! </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <6JednWM-dsvUeJvYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty, is there? I find "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE" a declaration of exquisite certainty. <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! </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) Emphasis added to help Septic find the relevant passage. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <zoGdnSe0GK0ZdpvYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:45063f8b$0$24170$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:JpednaZz0b8pm5vYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:4505fc4e$0$24211$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > >> > > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >> news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> > > > >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > >> > > > >> >> ... no proof either way. > > >> > > > >> > <BITCHSLAP>..... > > >> > > >> "No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance ... > > > > > > <BITCHSLAP> > > > > > > "No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God," > > > > Which is not an argument. > > Yes it definitely is Then Septic , in objecting, must be arguing that there IS proof that there is no god. But does not provide any. > > <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! > </quote> > (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) Septic is so blind to the contents of his own citation that I have taken the liberty of capitalizing the relevant phrase, so that even he can find it. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 > Not to date. No name calling no dodging my challenge. You screwed up and I am going to call you on it again dandagain and again, until your shame is legendary. September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. Calling me a liar wil not hide the fact you lied of the top of your head here and are getting callled on it. I am proving YOU are a liar and an intellectual incompetent of the lowest order. You know the rules, you make an assertion, you have to back it up or be called a loser and a fool. And to try to deflect the challenge by ad hominem attacks, your gutless coward habit, just compounds the shame. This all you do, shit errors and call names. ---------------------------------------------------- September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. There is not a single well known leading scientist that can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all. Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science." Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling about when you posted you foolish and false claim! SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS! Put them here. ----------------> I will post this challenge ever day until you comply, to show you are a lying, stupid bastard. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish claim and admit this was a gross error on your part. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12ged6tmift2qf8@corp.supernews.com... Barwell states: >>> When I dug up articles where the PT crew admitted >>> their PT god didn't exactly work, Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process theology. This is equivalent to saying that when Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a better explanation of evolution and Jerry Falwell said that he didn't believe in Evolution that meant that "the evolution crew admitted their theory doesn't work." An obvious and blatant lie, and one that well-read atheists know is used by the creationist/Intelligent Design Fundamentalistsall the time. Yet on exactly the same kind of evidence, Barwell states that the "PT crew admitted their PT god didn't exactly work." An almost perfect copy of a blatant fundamentalist tactical lie. Since when do critics of a subject constitute the proponents of a subject? I.e., a "crew."? I'll be posting this in response to any of Bawell's bogus 'challenges' or until he admits that he lied through his teeth. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process > theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 We have to probably call this A Mass of Lies. When are you going to retract them all, Barney? "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12eq0glflosh03d@corp.supernews.com... > > I tweaked my essay a bit to put things more > accurately. Over 35 years the mainstream religions > failed to utilize their large numbers to effectively > draw a line in the sand and end these policies of > supporting genocide and evil. > > They were at best feeble and uncertain > where they should most certainly been > uncompromising and resolute. TRANSLATION: Your original essay was sheer crap. And this newest version continues to contain a mass of blatant lies. > > The Failure of Christianity in America > W. C . Barwell 3-8-05 > > 1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an > uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? > > Since Nixon, this nation has rapidly moved quite far to the > right, taken there mainly by christian right wingers who have > fully supported the GOP, as it has moved specifically to > gain support of christian right wingers. This started when > Nixon played the racist Southern Strategy card building on > civil rights era resentments by far right Southerners. > http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172743.shtml > Conservative Southerners were very religious. Among other > things, after desegregation many religious groups started their > ownprivate segregated schools. White Citizens Councils > were formed,many meeting in churches. > > The turn towards Christian conservatives accelerated > under Reagan, who skillfully played the religious card, and the > religious right joined the GOP-Reagan revolution that still > is a major influence. That has given the GOP control of Congress > for years, especially thanks to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott > who gained control of the Congress, House and Senate in 1995 > with full support of the politicized religious right. > So we now have had a essentially a christian-GOP government > for 30 years. That's a lie. What we have is a Fundamentalist-GOP government. We had large right wing Christian movements > who were formed expressedly for political reasons to move > America right and to empower America conservative religionists, > and they have been largely successful. > > RICHARD M. NIXON - GERALD FORD. > > Christian denominations largely supported incompetent > and corrupt Vietnamese politicians. And a senseless war > in Vietnam that accomplished nothing, run by incompetents. That's a lie. The world and national council of churches opposed the war. > > Not many Christian denominations respected life here. > Or freedom. But supported Nixon heartily despite the > horrors we committed in Vietnam and Cambodia and Chile > and winked at support for others mentioned above. Another lie. Many denominations opposed all of the above. > > Not many major religious denominations nor their leaders > spoke out and drew a line at any of this. That's a lie. > RONALD REAGAN 1981 - 1989 > > Ronald Reagan came to power largely because of the > religious right's politicization and support. > > Throughout his administration Ronald Reagan supported > Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as the official government > of note in Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge delegation > as the official UN delegation of Cambodia to the UN. > Aid is funneled to the Khmer Rouge including $81 million > dollars, and food and uniforms funneled through aid > organizations. Reagan winked as China rearmed Pol Pot, > and leaned on nations not to send aid to Cambodia despite > the devastation of nearly 1/3 of Cambodia's population > killed by Pol Pot's genocidal regime. > > Early in his administration Reagan lead the GOP in > support for military aid to the genocidal Rios Montt > of Guatemala, who practiced wholesale mass torture, > mass rape mass murder and genocide on the Mayan Indians > of Guatemala. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/guatemala11.htm > > Reagan and the GOP supported the mass murdering ex-Somoza > Guards of Nicaragua. > > Reagan and the GOP supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq. > > Reagan and the GOP supported the murderous Robert > D'Aubisson of El Salvador, a known far right death > squad leader. > > The El Salvadoran government was involved in numerous > murders, and massacres, such as the killing of 400 > villagers at a small village called El Mezote, most > of them young women and children. > http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_chron1.html > > Reagan and the GOP supported Noriega of Panama. > > Reagan and the GOP supported a number of murdering > far right extremist guerrilla movements in Africa including > the genocidal RENAMO in Mozambique. > > The Christian and religious right heavily supported Reagan > and the GOP despite numerous examples of such evils as > listed above. Another lie. You're again conflating any and all Christian denominations with the religious right. They're not the same. > The leaders of the religious right never cared > nor complained, and rarely did the religious leaders of the > main stream christian denominations make any effort > to stand up and denounce these outrageous policies. No more rarely than atheists, Barwell. > The members of major denominations made little effort to > complain and demand their religious leaders react to > support for genocidal mass murderers. Another lie. > > Despite having 100 + millions of members, the main stream > denominations made little difference to Reagan and GOP > policies, vigorously supported by the religious right. As did the atheists make little difference. > > There was and is little real respect for life in organized > American christianity as these wholesale and repeat failures of > America christianity collectively over 35 years shows. Another lie. Liberation theology alone has been instrumental in opposing right wing dictatorships around the world and particularly in South America. > Action was mainly confined to small liberal denominations. Another lie. The world council and national council of churches have both liberal and conservative members. > What main stream denomination action was taken was feeble > and half hearted at best. Another lie. > > Many churches and denominations whole-heartedly support > Reagan and the GOP despite these horrors, and many > actively worked for Reagan's re-election and support of GOP > candidates, passing out tens of millions of voters' guides > slanted to support of far right GOP candiates and policies. > > GEORGE W. BUSH > > Bush continued support for the evil dictators above, > including Pinochet, Pol Pot and others. However, > Saddam screwed us and invaded Kuwait, mainly because > Bush screwed up and did not warn him to not do so > as Hussein repeatedly threatened to invade Kuwait > for nearly two months and coolly noted Bush's lack > of much response. > > Bush did not act in case of genocide by Yugoslavia's > Milosevic, and Bush and the GOP's loud and obnoxious > foot-dragging here allowed Milosevic to kill > hundreds of thousands with near impunity. > > The leaders of the GOP, House and Senate, and religious > leaders of the right > and mainstream denominations never > cared about any of this. Another lie. > The main stream denominations > rarely made much of an issue out of it, and what was done > was as usual,feeble. Another lie. > > Few Christian leaders of either far right or mainstream > denominations cared, nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership > of House and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents. Anothe lie as any search on the subject will show. > The voters' guides pushed in many churches still were demanding > parishioners vote GOP despite these horrors and mass murders. In many fundamentalist churches. > > Few leaders of large, powerful and influential denominations > ever stood up and denounced these mass murders. Another lie. > Christians > underneath did not push dilatory and feebly responsive denominational > leaders to speak out, act and lead against these mass murders > and war crimes. Another lie. > Nor the support early in Bush's career for > Saddam and Pop Pot and other genocidal monsters. > The far right churches as usual made no almost no efforts at all. Duh! > > Clinton: > Under Clinton this Iraq policy continued. Again, Christians > did not care. Another lie. > All many Christians cared about was Clinton's > don't-ask-don't-tell gays in military policy and Clinton's > sex life and Whitewater. $47 million spent investigating > Whitewater while the Christian right roared with naked hate. > Money spent investigation mass murder in Iraq caused by > our purposeful by our sanctions? $0. > Roars of disprovable from Christian America over these mass > murders? Not much. Roars from Atheist America? Just as few. > From the large far right religious > denominations there was next to no effort at all. Duh! > > No large denominations ever made these war crimes and > mass murders an issue A blatant lie. nor took the GOP or president to > task over these horrors in a manner tha ever made a > difference. > > What has 35 years of right winged GOP government and right > winger christianity got us? Sliding again, I see. Right winger christianity is not "christianity" Barwell. Like the true demagogue you are, I can understand your feverish desire to obscure that fact. > Mass murder, genocide, > Nothing but callousness, disregard for human life, > support for dictators, a near total moral failure of > religion, Christianity, GOP and the American right. And atheists. > > Not once did the large mass of religious christian > Americans, either leadership or rank and file ever > find any of these evils unacceptable A blatant lie. > or punish any > who supported any of this by using their large > memberships to draw a distinct line and make it an > unavoidable issue despite having numbers to do just > that. Not the christian right nor leaders of > major US religious denominations made a real difference. Nor atheists. > > > Most GOP House and Senate members were people who > did these things claimed to be christians. and many are atheists. > Not one > cares, not many christian denominations care that > they did not care or act. That's because they DID act, moron. > > Christians posture as moral, So do atheists. > American christians > have a very bad track records when it comes to > morality, So do atheists. > Christianity thus can only be called a moral failure, Under the terms of your argument, atheism can also be called a complete moral failure. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > When are you going to retract them all, Barney? > > "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message > news:12eq0glflosh03d@corp.supernews.com... >> >> I tweaked my essay a bit to put things more >> accurately. Over 35 years the mainstream religions >> failed to utilize their large numbers to effectively >> draw a line in the sand and end these policies of >> supporting genocide and evil. >> >> They were at best feeble and uncertain >> where they should most certainly been >> uncompromising and resolute. Yes it true. Over 35 years now the US supported a large list of insane dictators, genocide and mass murder, thanks to the GOP. Despite this, the religious GOP supporting Americans happily voted for the GOP despite mass murder and genocide. The rest of the mainstream denominations wih 100 + million members never managed to bring themselves to forcfully ending these horrors despite having the numbers to do so. Christianity thus failed. No lies here except from Gandy who will not admit this sad fact. Christianity could have acted en masse to stop the GOP and failed to act forcfully. Gandy will never stop hating me for posting the truth. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> The turn towards Christian conservatives accelerated >> under Reagan, who skillfully played the religious card, and the >> religious right joined the GOP-Reagan revolution that still >> is a major influence. That has given the GOP control of Congress >> for years, especially thanks to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott >> who gained control of the Congress, House and Senate in 1995 >> with full support of the politicized religious right. >> So we now have had a essentially a christian-GOP government >> for 30 years. > > That's a lie. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gfvhlsjs75b06@corp.supernews.com... > Why do you lie about it? "wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:1287237o4d4d457@corp.supernews.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> "wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message >> news:1284l2258b69ifd@corp.supernews.com... >>> The Fool wrote: >>> >>>> Well put. It's telling how Barwell and others don't even try to have a >>>> rational discussion, it's just personal attack and assertion. You're >>>> either with us or against us! >>> >>> >>> I point out that for thirty years the GOP has won power >>> with support of far right religious Americans and religious >>> leaders >> >> And attempted to float the lie that NO religious leaders came out against >> the excesses of the right. >> > > I did not say no religious leaders You, sir, are a flaming, barefaced Liar. Proof follows This should be the end of the question of Barlow's credibility. Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!sn-xt-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: wbarwell <wbarw...@mylinuxisp.com> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.society.liberalism Subject: Re: The Problem of Evil Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:01:20 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: 127vrmorn8e4u64@corp.supernews.com Snip to relevant passages. [CAPs for emphasis are mine....GG] The Failure of Christianity in America W. C . Barwell 3-8-05 NO Christians respected life here. Or freedom. But supported Nixon heartily despite the horrors we committed in Vietnam and Cambodia and Chile and winked at support for others mentioned above. NO CHRISTIAN LEADERS of either far right or mainstream cared nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership of House and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents. NOT ONCE did religious christian Americans, EITHER LEADERSHIP or rank and file ever find any of these evils unacceptable or punish any who supported any of this. Not the christian right NOR LEADERS of major US religious denominations. Most GOP House and Senate members were people who did these things claimed to be christians. NOT A ONE CARES, NOT A CHRISTIAN CARES they did not care or act. Many of those who presided over these massive moral failures still hold office in the US Congress and Senate, leaders and ran and file. Almost all claim to be christians. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gfvardlhk4o40@corp.supernews.com... > No lies here "wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:1287237o4d4d457@corp.supernews.com... > I did not say no religious leaders You, sir, are a flaming, barefaced Liar. Proof follows This should be the end of the question of Barlow's credibility. Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!sn-xt-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: wbarwell <wbarw...@mylinuxisp.com> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.society.liberalism Subject: Re: The Problem of Evil Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:01:20 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: 127vrmorn8e4u64@corp.supernews.com Snip to relevant passages. [CAPs for emphasis are mine....GG] The Failure of Christianity in America W. C . Barwell 3-8-05 NO Christians respected life here. Or freedom. But supported Nixon heartily despite the horrors we committed in Vietnam and Cambodia and Chile and winked at support for others mentioned above. NO CHRISTIAN LEADERS of either far right or mainstream cared nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership of House and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents. NOT ONCE did religious christian Americans, EITHER LEADERSHIP or rank and file ever find any of these evils unacceptable or punish any who supported any of this. Not the christian right NOR LEADERS of major US religious denominations. Most GOP House and Senate members were people who did these things claimed to be christians. NOT A ONE CARES, NOT A CHRISTIAN CARES they did not care or act. Many of those who presided over these massive moral failures still hold office in the US Congress and Senate, leaders and ran and file. Almost all claim to be christians. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 In the end, no major religious denominations save the usual Menonnites and Quakers came out against Vietnam. Nixon won re-election with 60% of the vote and the war went right on. The Christians went with Nixon, not shunned him. If the draft was phased out it was not a few churchemen that did it, but millons of angry youths seen as cannon fodder by military incompetents. The Youth of America said "No! and was starting to burn things. The Christians voted Nixon and war and no large denominations drew that line in the sand. Now stop lying about this. And now back to the real issue you are trying to divert us from and cannot divert us from. September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. Put up or shut up. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandy, I said yiou would try to avoid putting up or shutting up by trying to divert attention from your gross stupidity. No, that won't be allowed to work. Gandy challenge - day 01 - Process metaphysics is basis of science? September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. There is not a single well known leading scientist that can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all. Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science." Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling about when you posted you foolish and false claim! SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS! Put them here. ----------------> I will post this challenge ever day until you comply, to show you are a lying, stupid bastard. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish claim and admit this was a gross error on your part. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Viet Nam war Nixon wins re-election with 60% of vote thanks t Christians who vote and te war goes on. No lies of yiours will hide the truth. Christianity failed here, despite a small minority of outspoken Chrstians. The big denominations did not speak out and Nixon won and the war went on, Christianity failed. Failed big! Now again, the thing yiou are trying to avoid with your lies and diversions. You will not be allowed to do so. Gandy challenge - day 01 - Process metaphysics is basis of science? September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. There is not a single well known leading scientist that can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all. Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science." Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling about when you posted you foolish and false claim! SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS! Put them here. ----------------> I will post this challenge ever day until you comply, to show you are a lying, stupid bastard. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish claim and admit this was a gross error on your part. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gggnsiuima8eb@corp.supernews.com... > > In the end, no major religious denominations save the > usual Menonnites and Quakers came out against Vietnam. Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement ... Dorothy Day, Prophet of Pacifism for the Catholic Church ... The influence of the Catholic Worker during the Vietnam War is explored in detail in American ... http://www.cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Roman Catholic The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious institution in the United ... and corporate actions that awakened Catholic opposition to the Vietnam War. ... http://www.soulforce.org/article/95 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Research Advisory Service - Doe/Moffitt Libraries ... Catholic Church's Position on Vietnam War & Daniel Berrigan; Healthcare-Cuba ... African Americans & Education; Catholic Opposition to Birth Control ... http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/doemoff/ras_topics.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Crisis Magazine A noticeable feature of Catholic opposition to the war was that, outside America ... The second, more radical view thought that the Vietnam War had revealed ... http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/feature2.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages US Christian Leaders Rally as Peacemakers "We're further along now than we were in the Vietnam War. ... of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, hand-delivered a letter of opposition to ... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1102-07.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Chapter 16 To the Catholic Church, however, Vietnam was more than a mere stepping stone in ... The Catholic communities reacted in turn. From passive opposition they ... http://www.reformation.org/chapter16.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages Legendary liberal WW Finlator fought segregation, poverty, war Finlator, longtime pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, ... including opposition to the Vietnam War, support for women's rights, ... http://www.abpnews.com/1307.article - 11k - Cached - Similar pages Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam. Delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr April 1967 At Manhattan's Riverside Church ... http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-13.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages First Baptist Church - History First Baptist declared its opposition to the deportation of "refugees as long as persecution, torture and murder of civilians continued." The church has ... http://www.firstbaptistithaca.org/history.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages Opposition to the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The executive committee of World Council of Churches, an organization joined by churches .... Opposition to US foreign policy Quote
Guest John Jones Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > Copi deals with a claim of necessity. > > The gullible might believe what you say, were it not for the theist argument > _ad ignorantiam_, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist conjecture] > Galileo could not prove false!" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.