BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 03:55 PM

""it just sounds like you got stung at the picnic!""

And here comes the advance guard of the hive mind creationist ant colony.

Time to pack up the sarnies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 10:49 AM

it just sounds like you got stung at the picnic!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 06:36 AM

""Unicorn, an imaginary horse with a horn.""

Another fiction you believe in Jack?

That is a description, not a definition.

My sense of humour is fine, and I derive considerable amusement from your pathetic attempts to cast those who don't believe as fundamentalist bullies who are personally attacking you.

You're not that significant mate! Just a minor irritant, like a wasp at a picnic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 02:57 AM

Err hang on, dont help me, let me guess.

A basket of guano flavoured bananas and an ostrich singing Et in Terra Pax, from Vivaldi's Gloria?

zzzzzzzz. Wake me up when his ship sails. zzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:03 AM

"Define a non existent object for us. "

Logically all of these are plausible except for the lack of real world evidence.

unified field theory
In physics, a unified field theory (UFT), occasionally referred to as a uniform field theory,[1] is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field. There is no accepted unified field

Logically all of these are plausible except for the lack of real world evidence.

Unicorn, an imaginary horse with a horn.

Logically all of these are plausible except for the lack of real world evidence.

Don T's sense of humor.



"I would really be impressed if you could."

Impressed yet? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:03 PM

It was a while back, but i got over it;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:49 AM

I wasn't aware I'd expressed that idea. I don't think you are a creationist "fundie", if that helps!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 09:27 PM

Thanks for you answers, Steve. I appreciate your directness, clarity, and brevity very much.
I hestitate to comment more, because I think you made a very satisfactory accounting for yourself, and I don't want to detract from that at all.

By asking my questions, i seem to have convinced Pete that I am one of the faithless and Godless, and, since you have expressed the idea that I am a creationist fundie, my work here may be done;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 07:38 PM

pete does define a non existent object all the time.......

Are you trying to claim that pete tries to define his own brain??

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans shame
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:27 PM

pete does define a non existent object all the time.......



I know, cheap but fairly intellectual compared with his latest epistle on the other god thread....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM

""interesting that steve replied to your questions , stim,, by affirming that he neither knows nor cares.""

So, how would you go about defining something you don't believe in, other than by sying you don't believe in it.

Define a non existent object for us. I would really be impressed if you could.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:17 PM

We all know what a bloody liar you are, pete, and how you like to insult the intelligence of everyone else here by hoping we won't notice, but I did not answer Stim's questions in the way you claim. I answered only the first of the two questions that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 11:05 AM

Yes it did say probably.

However, calling it a godsend is slightly ironic. Especially considering the many attempts to have them removed as contradicting religious teaching. ...

In any event, my bemusement was purely the dilemma of ASA.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 10:41 AM

interesting that steve replied to your questions , stim,, by affirming that he neither knows nor cares. in light of that opening shot the rest of the post is somewhat redundant since it is evident that if he even had a "damascus road" experience such as paul had, he would simply say that science will eventually explain that as well!
and how about you stim - are you concerned about yourself in relation to the Almighty? worried about your spiritual lack?
i would be happy to try to help,were that the case,but if you are of similar stance to steve then i venture to suggest that whatever evidence i offer would not be accepted.

musket- the bus ads actually said "...PROBABLY no God....."
i heard that it turned out to be a bit of a "godsend" as it provided believers with opportunities to discuss the faith - at the expense of people opposed to that faith!.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 09:59 AM

I have no issue with the buildings and the art, especially the music, of which I'm particularly fond. They're as much as part of my heritage as they are of anyone else's. There are aspects of religion's ill-gotten wealth that I do have issues with. As for the art, though, Vaughan Williams, an avowed atheist, said "There is no reason why an atheist could not write a good Mass", and he proved it by writing one of great beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans ethics research guidance
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 01:33 PM

The base is simple. As there is no evidence to say there is no god and the narrative is either in books or heads, you would find it difficult to get research funding to prove one way or another.

I love the Advertising Standards Authority's dilemma the other year. Dawkins & Co put up posters on buses saying there is no God. God botherers objected. The ASA had to intervene and rule. Basically, they had to rule as to whether there is a God or not. It seems there isn't....

Bit of a bugger really, considering the many fine historical buildings, not to mention the priceless art. No problem, I am sure the poor and needy could do with the proceeds of the sales.....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM

1. I neither know nor care.

2. The same standard of evidence we demand for everything else. Plenty of independent corroboration for his apparitions would do for starters. That does not apply to the usual "evidence" for God put before us. Witness, hearsay, ancient tendentious texts selectively presented to us, edicts, ceremony and tradition all fall well short. In sum, we don't know what evidence would be good enough because we haven't had any as yet that is worthy of the necessary scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 10:20 PM

I have two questions:

1)How do you define God?

2) What would constitute evidence of this God's existence?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 07:21 PM

You have proved my point, Steve. You are, my friend, what I would call an "ideological atheist." Relax, and open yourself to other perspectives. Even if they're "wrong," you might learn something from them. You pay only lip service to doubt. Your certainty that others are wrong, is what is most apparent.

'nuff said.

'Nuff said my arse. If you think that repeatedly calling me an ideological atheist will somehow make it more true, you're seriously misguided. There is not one speck of ideology about my atheism. I'm an atheist for one reason (let's see if I can get it into two lines, as I claimed):

"There is no evidence for a God. The laws of nature can probably explain everything, though we do need to understand all those laws first. We are closing in on even the hardest issues still to be explained, and there's no need to interpose an "explanation" that explains nothing, least of all itself."

There ya go. Why I'm an atheist. There's no hidden ideology or complicated set of anti-theological textbooks behind it, unlike your theological tittle-tattle. Like me, it's really simple. By perpetually calling me ideological you are doing no more than indulging in the discredited scallywag's game of equating religion with atheism. By doing this you open yourself up to much-deserved ridicule. Do try to let go of it. As for who's right or wrong, I'm getting sick of telling you that I don't know what the truth is (why don't you listen?): I don't know whether God exists or not. There are good people who adhere to God and there are good people who do not. For someone who espouses religion and who makes his kids go to religious schools and say their prayers, it's a bit rich, to say the least, for you accuse me of paying lip service to doubt. There are billions of people of faith on this planet with whom you cheerfully throw in your lot, yet you have the gall to accuse me of certainty. Well, I must say, that's pretty typical of the narrow-minded religious mindset. The sort of thing you're always telling us you don't personally subscribe to, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 06:00 PM

I have carefully read each post, and after much reflection, I have these two items to offer, and hope that they are properly considered.


The Extraterrestrial Teapot

Beatrice Lillie's "Fairies at the Bottom of our Garden"

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 02:10 PM

No point speculating Mike.

Pete himself doesn't understand what he's talking about. That's why he cannot string two coherent sentences together.

Off to make music now.

More later.

Don T.

P.S. Joe, when did responding to fundamentalist personal attacks become a fundamentalist religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 06:39 AM

Nobody has 'corrected' me about the bugs because I was correct already.

Apart from that, I have lost any sense of what you might be on about, pete.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 05:14 AM

thankyou steve for answering your own exanple!the similar answer pertains to M,s bugs,which he may recall,i think,jack had corrected him.and jack is an evolutionist!.
steve- what happened 10 seconds,days or decades ago has been observed.as you know,and continue to evade ,microbes to man evolution has not been observed.neither can you demonstrate how the new information can arise via mutations and natural .demonstrate if you can that those moths could have evolved into anything other than moths?!.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sans
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 01:39 AM

I reckon that whilst Joe has a point regarding opening your eyes to other perspectives in order to learn, this is very true in order to understand human emotion and seeing how others cope with reality.

Steve, Don and others including myself are pointing out the reality people are coping with.

If anyone could ever successfully reconcile that they would be lucky. As lucky as a cat with a strawberry flavoured arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:49 PM

You have proved my point, Steve. You are, my friend, what I would call an "ideological atheist." Relax, and open yourself to other perspectives. Even if they're "wrong," you might learn something from them. You pay only lip service to doubt. Your certainty that others are wrong, is what is most apparent.

'nuff said.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:24 PM

"Fundamentalist atheists" are just like "fundamentalist Christians." They allow only for their own ideology.

This is utter nonsense on several levels. First, there is no atheist ideology. We do keep trying to tell you this, but you clearly want us to have an ideology in order for you to have something to shoot at. I can sum up my atheism in about two lines (I often have done), and there is no tightly-argued quasi-antitheological corollary. That isn't fundamentalism - it's one big shrug.   Second, "fundamentalist" implies the possession of an ideology. See above. You can't be fundamentalist about nothing. Third, fundamentalism implies certainty. I have no certainty about any religious matter. I don't know whether there's a God (which is not to imply that I sit on the fence - I don't). Fourth, fundamentalist Christians have deliberately shut their eyes to evidence and reason. Well, if there is any such thing as an atheist, it's a person who has taken on board the evidence against a deity, which is strong, and applied all his powers of reason (any atheist who isn't like that isn't the kind of atheist I wish to associate with). Atheism cannot mean certainty, and certainty is a sine qua non of fundamentalism. Your post is what I described above: a mixture of frustration and goading. Well, you goaded me into this response. The frustration is all yours to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:36 PM

Conflating non belief with religion and claiming that they are somehow equal but opposite, is the hypocritical negation of honest debate.

Ah, but sometimes, it's the truth. Those who vehemently reject all other schools of thought, have a lot in common. That goes for many fundamentalists, including fundamentalist atheists. I think we can learn from almost all "open" schools of thought - from almost all thinking people, no matter what their paradigms.

When people are tied to rigid ideologies, it's downright impossible to carry on a discussion with them.

"Fundamentalist atheists" are just like "fundamentalist Christians." They allow only for their own ideology.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 06:48 PM

Conflating non belief with religion and claiming that they are somehow equal but opposite, is the hypocritical negation of honest debate.

That's it. And it usually smacks of frustration spiced with goading, neither of which would contribute much towards furthering any debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 06:02 PM

Cor, wish I hadn't mentioned the dreaded peppered moth... There are plenty of question marks over the integrity of the initial study of this poor beast. As for being an example of evolution, that's tricky. The dark form was present all along, but in low numbers, then a change in the environment favoured it, so its numbers increased. Natural selection. But the only way in which the species has changed is in the relative numbers of dark and light forms, and, if the environment changes back, this change is completely reversible.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 04:42 PM

""Of course, that's gonna cause trouble. But not with you, I hope! ;-)""

No Steve, not with me! Not on this subject anyway!

I try very hard not to get nasty with anybody simply because he disagrees with me (being human, I don't always succeed), but people who post with the sole intention of provoking a fight, especially if they start multiple threads in a concerted campaign of denigration, relly push my buttons.

Conflating non belief with religion and claiming that they are somehow equal but opposite, is the hypocritical negation of honest debate.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:32 PM

And even there, something of a distinction without a difference, maybe, Steve? Note first & last sentences of wikipedia's article on 'Peppered Moth - Evolution', with added emphases ~~

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail .......   the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:20 PM

Then there's the good ol' peppered moth, though, strictly speaking, these are examples of the process of natural selection and not evolution. Yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:14 PM

Bedbugs immune to insecticides was the instant example, just to refresh yr memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:13 PM

You believe as unadorned truth a load of religious stuff for which there is not a scrap of evidence. There is a ton of evidence for evolution, and the process of natural selection, the main driver of evolution, can be observed everywhere. I love that double standard. To take your vacuous (as ever) argument to the point of absurdity, we might as well say that nothing exists except at the instant of time we call "now". Nobody is seeing it ten seconds ago and nobody can see it in the future. Well, we can bat that one around all day if we like, but I'm a simple man and I prefer helpful notions personally. You're clutching at straws. Evolution is here. And it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:11 PM

I've set you right before, pete -- see above -- about the cognateness of 'evolution' & 'natural selection'. Can't you see that 'evolution' is an ongoing process driven by factors among the most prominent & important of which is 'natural selection'? You've accepted that point once, but seem to have developed some sort of taxonomic amnesia since then.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:55 PM

"....tell me where it is,nt true"
well steve,- where it is not true is that what you see happening all around you is not goo to you evolution but natural selection.you are doing your switch and bait thing again.anything more has not been observed even though dawkins said that it had" ...it is just that there was no one there to observe it "!
of course if you have we are all ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:25 PM

I seen discussions like this many times in bars, but they usually don't last nearly this long, and furniture ends up gettin' broke. Anyways, while contemplatin' my whiskey here, I come up with another way to lump all the atheists together.

We make 'em all dress in velcro clothing, see? Whenever they bump into another atheist, they'll get stuck to each other. After awhile you'll see clumps of 'em standin' around at intersections and in hallways, all lumped up together. In time these clumps of atheists'll have to be moved outta the way, maybe into holdin' areas like public parks and vacant lots.

Other atheists will wonder where their buddies are, and they'll go to those places and likewise get stuck in the clump.

After a year or so we call out the military, round up all them separate clumps and transport 'em to the Nevada desert so they won't get in other people's way.

That oughta do it. I will see about enactin' legislation to achieve this after I get elected, so help me God! ;-D Ook! Ook!

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:10 AM

You seem to fail to understand. The same with American / English spelling.

The object of the exercise is pointing out your pedantry and latching onto small irrelevant detail and throwing it back in people's faces.

I have said all along that my showboating in these atheism threads includes respondingyto you in kind, possibly with knobs on, and using it as an example of your absurdity if you insist on stereotyping with a purpose, or religious bigotry if you will.   I haven't hitherto used that term but if you insist on rational debate rather than flippant piss taking, I can do that too. So.. I'm sorry but a spade is a spade. If someone posted asking if all black people are like Robert Mugabe, and saying they are curious as to whether they are, I reckon bigot would be putting it mildly. So why huddle all non believers into the same paint spraying booth?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:58 PM

I meant no disrespect to your degree Dr. Mather, I was just surprised that you wanted me to address you that way when you had never told me you had that degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:13 PM

All I gotta say, Steve Shaw, is that you posted the 300th message in this thread and didn't lay claim to it.

Why?

I've seen it a lot and always regarded it as an odd habit. 300 is no more special than 273, for example. Actually, to a physical scientist, 273 with a minus sign is far more significant (and I picked 273 there by accident!)

OK, pedants, 273.1.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:06 PM

Snail hath quothed: Actually, I think trying to promote a better understanding of science is a very useful thing to be doing.

Of course. But you're not going to promote much of an understanding by preachifying your falsifiability stuff and other philosophical ramblings in a thread that is read mostly by non-specialists, nor are you going to promote much of an understanding by constantly nit-picking with a bloke you basically agree with on the substance. You will promote a better feeling of here-he-comes-again boredom, that's all.

Good. I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to address the points that I have raised.

You see, the great thing about these internet forum doodahs is that you can either respond or not respond. Had I taken umbrage at all the people who had not responded to something I'd said I'd have slit me bloody own throat yonks ago. You really don't get to insist that I respond to all your minutiae, especially when you are in hector-mode, repeating your nigglings over and over again. I'm a busy fellow, you know. I get accused one minute of taking on stuff head-on, and the next minute of being evasive. Relax, babe. And reflect on the fact that you'll have it back whatever I say. There is a limit to how much time I can spend with you. I have Wacko to consider as well, you know.

I'm asking you to think outside your oft repeated doctrines. I'm asking you to consider (as all scientists must) the possibility that you are wrong.

I have no doctrines. I am unsure about everything. But evolution is true. It's all around you, going on right now. It's why we're here and it's lovely. If you think that's a doctrine, then tell me where it isn't true.

Without the philosophy that underlies science what is it that you think distinguishes science from religion?

The only "philosophy" I can think of right now is that science is predicated on evidence and religion is not. Do tell me if I need more. I'm sure you will. But I might be a bit busy this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 07:46 PM

Cheers, Don. We typify what this forum ought to be about. We can both think that the other can be a complete bastard at times but we both recognise a good call when we see it. Of course, that's gonna cause trouble. But not with you, I hope! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:37 PM

Just for Jack TS : Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais Discuss Religion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X8fUy6tqMKM

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:44 AM

""I suppose that the only thing proved by this "atheist" series of threads, is that Jack the Sailor likes to fight, and Steve Shaw likes to fight.""

I would say it proves rather more than that Joe.

1. Jack the Sailor cannot stand the idea that there are people in the world who don't share his beliefs, and reacts by poking them with multiple sticks so that he can feel victimised by them. He takes their existence as a personal insult.

2. Steve Shaw will always fight back if poked in this way, but not because he likes a fight. He just insists on the right to make up his own mind and live his life his way.

3. Little Hawk analyses people he knows nothing about and comments on competing egos, while having the biggest ego around and a pathological need to feel superior to the rest.

4. I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm somewhere in the middle, but I feel much more at home with the Atheists, even though I don't share their lack of belief.

In short, I'm with Steve on most of this.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM

Steve Shaw
For goodness sake, man. Have you nothing useful to be getting on with?

From someone who spends a great deal of his time arguing with Jack and pete, that's a bit rich. Actually, I think trying to promote a better understanding of science is a very useful thing to be doing. Prof. Dawkins earned his living at it for quite a while.

The only way I can respond to that is to repeat what I've said before to you ad nauseam. I positively refuse to churn it all out again.

Good. I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to address the points that I have raised. I'm asking you to think outside your oft repeated doctrines. I'm asking you to consider (as all scientists must) the possibility that you are wrong.

Incidentally, I don't brush aside anything...

How are you doing on falsifiability? Have you actually read any of the links I've put your way?

I just happen to not particularly want to enter your booby-trapped and nice-but-irrelevant world of philosophical ramblings.

Without the philosophy that underlies science what is it that you think distinguishes science from religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:23 AM

St Jack the Evangelist.   LOL







Do you know, that's the first and possibly the last time I have ever typed lol?   Oh bugger, just done it again.   

As Jack has hitherto failed to get his latest embarrassment closed, I invite all yet again to scroll up and read his op. The rest is gravy.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:49 PM

Joe, I said I WOULD NOT MIND if YOU close the thread if you wanted. Do you remember asking me not to start any more? I remember when you were moderating, you getting flack from OP's for closing threads. I was only saying that you wouldn't have to about me complaining if you do.



Dr. Mather? LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:17 PM

All I gotta say, Steve Shaw, is that you posted the 300th message in this thread and didn't lay claim to it.

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: number 6
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:55 PM

Will that be 1 lump or 2 ??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:37 PM

The only way I can respond to that is to repeat what I've said before to you ad nauseam. I positively refuse to churn it all out again. Incidentally, I don't brush aside anything (go to the back of the class with pete, Joe Offer, Wacko and Little Hawk in the naughty misrepresentation corner). I just happen to not particularly want to enter your booby-trapped and nice-but-irrelevant world of philosophical ramblings. Not now, thank you. For goodness sake, man. Have you nothing useful to be getting on with?