On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:23:45 -0000, "Malcolm McLean"
<regniztar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:enals35vbkjtr4k9ids8qlhfqi5cm72q9a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:24:52 -0000, "Malcolm McLean"
>> <regniztar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"bob young" <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:47CB0AAB.28CAE2A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what atheists have got to do is chip away at the credibility of
>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>
>>>> no, atheists deny all gods
>>>>
>>>Yes, of course they do. Currently there are no atheists whose atheism
>>>isn't
>>>a reaction to Christianity. An atheist is someone who denys the God of
>>>Christianity without accepting another religion.
>>
>> Stop lying about this again.
>>
>> You know perfectly well that plenty of atheists here were never
>> Christians and so never had anything to react to.
>>
>They've been exposed to Christianity.
So ****ing what?
You're English. So you know that plenty of English kids aren't taught
it. So that by the time they hear it for the first time it's no
different than eg the Greek myths.
They aren't reacting to anything. They were already atheist even
though they had probably never heard the word.
All that happens when they hear Christians spouting their mythology,is
a combination of "aren't they stupid to believe what the ancients did"
and "some people believe something".
Which you already know because you have been told this repeatedly ever
since you first came here to lie about atheists to our faces.
Do you do this to tell us how nastily stupid you are> Because that's
your message.
We even know why you do it: because you stupidly imagine the whole
world revolves around your religion.
> Even in the case of Chinese
atheists,
>who haven't been brought up in a Christian culture, the atheism is
im****ted
>from the West, and Marx was writing in reaction to Christianity.
Are really, honestly this stupid?
>The equaivalent of an athist in Buddhist societies is not someone who,
like
>Buddah, doesn't beleive in gods, but someone who feels that Buddah was a
>fool and that his teachings are holding back his society. However there
>isn't a large body of such people, and where they exist they tend to be
>Westernised people. That is to say, they are more or less modelling
>themselves on Western atheists.
You're lying again, liar.
>> If it is defined as somebody who isn't theist then they are. WHICH IS
>> WHAT DESCRIBES US.
>>
>Dictionary definitions of words aren't very useful for philosophy. In
>particular if you want to tak about a philosophical position it doesn't
>really iluminate the debate to quote the two line definition the
dictonary
>compiler has chosen to describe it.
It's not about philosophy, moron. It's about pig-ignorant retards like
you telling us we're something we're not.
>You can define "atheist" as you say, but then we need a different word
for
>people like you that excludes Buddhists. Rather than do that, it's better
to
>stick to agreed terminology. You are an atheist. We can then argue about
the
>intellectual history of your ideas.
Why, moron? Your pretend friend is as irrelevant to us as it is to
Buddhists.
And when you open up your "Comparative Religion for Dummies" you will
see that some Buddhist sects are described as atheistic and others as
theistic.
You will also see that atheism isn't what you pretend.
What is it about you pig-ignorant, arrogant and rude idiots who
imagine you get to tell us what our POV "really" is, Where we "get it
from", and other lies?
|
