BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

" If there really is no Creator or intelligent design then it must be survival of the fittest and no one would need to respect anyone, right? Or is that just too simple?"

David, that's simplistic. Darwin never mentioned "survival of the fittest". That comes from Herbert Spencer, a philosopher around Darwin's time. An either/or argument doesn't apply here. It so happens that atheists and Freethinkers have historically been shown to not only respect other people but have been at the forefront of social issues and constructive social change.

I think it is socially constructive and important to question the "belief" systems that pull our country and others into meaningless wars and assassinations justified by religious zealots. Apparently Slag doesn't think this is important enough. This is why we can't keep "belief" to ourselves unconditionally. The issue has to be faced. Will we allow religious zealotry to dictate political debates? What about the effrontery of those seven
U.S. Republican senators who went on record that they didn't believe in Evolution? Is this not an important issue? What about George Bush receiving his "messages" about Iraq from a god?

The true test of an atheist is to be able to discuss what happens when "belief" gets out of control. It is out of control now and the First Amendment is being violated daily by religious zealots.

An examination of religious beliefs is in order for society to function smoothly. We need
to have an intelligent discussion about religion and not knee-jerk reaction or try to sweep the religious issues under the carpet as Slag has suggested that we do.

It's perfectly fine for those who want to believe in Santa Claus or the Flat-Earth Society
but when religion becomes a vehicle for violence (and make no mistake, it is) then we must discuss it.

Right now, Nixon's former Watergate conspirator Coulson is attempting to Christianize
the prison system in the U.S. by rewarding believers and making those who don't second-class prisoners. The Army Air Force Cadet Training program is attempting to Christianize
recruits by forcing religion down their throats. Is this not important? Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president in violation to the Separation of Church and State.

What we need is more discussion about the efficacy of "belief" than a denial of this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Um - how about the observable fact that it happens, and has been happening for close to a billion years?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:18 AM

Well, O gastropod, the point is that I find it increasingly frustrating to argue with someone who thinks that "random" means "unpredictable" and who fatuously attempts (no fewer than three times at the last count) to pin spurious religiosity to my opinions. Why, it's enough to drive a man to cliché. Arguing with you is worse than trying to grab a greased pig and at least as bad as pissing into a strong wind. Which could still mean that you're quite intelligent I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 03:58 AM

I thought the above "Bother" would be sufficient to alert the elves to the fact that the preceding Guest post was from me without benefit of cookie (I wonder what causes that) but apparently not.

Steve Shaw

(Thinks: Maybe he's not such an intelligent fellow after all...)

There you go. If all else fails, insult the intelligence of your opponent. Still no references or examples to back up you statements?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:23 PM

As for 'clock rates' living organisms have many 'clocks' - the rates change all over the place depending on factors internal & external to the organisms - some of these factors are documented, many are not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:10 PM

QUOTE
"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Without reading this idiot thread closely (I'm going to die within the next 30 years) have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate (i.e. did chimps and humans separate 3.5 million years ago, or 3.25, or 3.75?)
UNQUOTE

I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Hint: It's tricky to prove a total negative .... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

"have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate"

I've possessed many a clock in my time, some with batteries in them, others that I wind up, analogue faces, digital faces, etc. Absolutely nothing controversial about them except for one teensy thing. Their rates.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM

"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Without reading this idiot thread closely (I'm going to die within the next 30 years) have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate (i.e. did chimps and humans separate 3.5 million years ago, or 3.25, or 3.75?)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

Bother.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM

""Natural selection has no goals" is not a meaningful statement, as natural selection is incapable of intention. "

Semantic confusion of terms.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:47 PM

"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM

"you may be right but I haven't found anything in text books or the internet to say so "

I remember being ridiculed by someone who had read a 100 year old book and refused to accept modern advances on fluid dynamics and acoustics, because the original author had not mentioned what I said ... as far as the Internet, it's a bit like a lucky dip - if you want the latest advances, then Google is not always appropriate, you need appropriate sources, for many of which you may need financial membership.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM

Look at these pictures and dare deny that most mutations do not survive.The evidence is right there to see.

successful mutations

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM

Flow, flow the waves hated,
Accursed, adored,
The waves of mutation:
No anchorage is.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the concept that life is serious".

"Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again".

"We willing, following the unknow, doing the impossible. Doing so much, for so long, with so little, that we can conclude anything from nothing".

"A conclusion is the place where you get when you are tired of thinking".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM

(Thinks: Maybe he's not such an intelligent fellow after all...)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

It's when a mutation affects *embryology*

i.e. in the cell divisions leading up to gametogenesis. Mutations in non- gamete cells aren't propagated.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:20 PM

Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation.

And "invisible" mutations, i.e. changes in the DNA strand during replication that do not impact any gene for anything phenotypic but occur in the 98% or some such of the organism's DNA that *doesn't* code for the organism, happen at a regular rate, and are part of the normal replication process, and thanks to THAT, we have a molecular clock and that is what can show how long ago two species, like us and the chimps (@5 mya) or the 'panzees and the bobobos (@3 mya), had their common ancestor.

If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all.

It's when a mutation affects *embryology* that you have a change that is visible to natural selection. At that point the change (possibly to a different species, possibly to nothing that works, e.g. extinction) starts to happen very rapidly, yet the basic rate of mutation is not changed.

"Natural selection has no goals" is not a meaningful statement, as natural selection is incapable of intention. It happens, and it is very much not random - selection selects something that works and selects against things that don't. And by work, I mean get more DNA into the next generation in such a way as to promote the survival and replication of the DNA *in* that next generation.

Remember the "goal" of DNA-based life is to become an *ancestor* - not just a parent.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 09:28 AM

Steve Shaw

You're an intelligent fellow.

Kind of you to say so. It makes a pleasant change from some of your more condescending remarks like "Read your Darwin" (I have) and "Was it a good college?" (How good would be good enough to satisfy you?). Alas, your view is not shared by Foolestroupe who I think I can now justifiably ignore.

It's always best in a debate to avoid assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

You may, Spock-like, choose the mathematical definition all you like.

You choose whichever is the appropriate definition for the context. If you are talking about science, you use the scientific definition and make it clear that you are doing so.

Break free of "random" and talk biological.

Once more the voice of authority. You still, despite being asked repeatedly, fail to come up with any references or supporting evidence."This is so because I, Steve Shaw say so. Don't argue boy." You are not in school now nor are you debating with a creationist or intelligent designist.

I think I am beginning to understand your problems with "random". The intelligent design lobby are fond of saying things like "Something as complex as the eye could not possibly have arisen by chance." and fail to grasp the point that natural selection is not random as you have been very fond of telling me. Yes, I know that thank you.
As a reult, "random" has become a bogey word and must be totally expunged from the language. You seem to be unable to separate meiosis, which works on DNA, and natural selection, which works on living organisms. This is illustrated by the fact that it took me several days to get you to actually address the point I was making, which was about errors in DNA copying, and kept banging on about natural selection. For instance -

The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. Natural selection is not a determining force: it is blind, without goals.

Complete non-sequitur. The last sentence has nothing to do with the first two. In fact, there is a non-sequitur between the first two sentences. There is nothing to say that a cause can't have a random result; if I flip a coin, I don't cause it to land heads (wish I could). I know, I know, two flips aren't going to be absolutely identical but if every cause is unique then this is meaningless. OK, my first flip may have "caused" the coin to land heads and my second flip may also cause it to land heads but for different reasons but there is no possibility of predicting the outcome.

The sequence is a result of causes. Really? I'm with Mrrzy - Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. At a trivial level mutations will have causes, a bit of thermal agitation, bits of the "machinery" bumping up against each other, no need for your environmental causes. They happen but are not the main story.

For all I know, you may be right but I haven't found anything in text books or the internet to say so and you have failed to provide any evidence. You just trot out your dogma. You are turning evolution into a religion which does it no favours.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:45 AM

"they are just uncaused changes in the strands of DNA"

Uncaused, eh? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:50 AM

"I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other". "

Thus you demonstrate that you are but a close minded ignorant bigot, trying to pretend cleverness.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:48 AM

"I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other". "

Thus you demonstrate that you are but a close minded ignorant bigot, try to pretend cleverness.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 12:17 AM

///You are a mere side-effect, as are blades of grass, antelope, elephants, ants, E. coli, or whatever.///

If everything is a side-effect then there's really no such thing as a side-effect.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:05 PM

Any mutation that is expressed as the phenotype is visible to natural selection. - right - but - by far the largest proportion of mutations AREN'T expressed in the phenotype. They have no effect, they are just uncaused changes in the strands of DNA that make up that type of organism. Remember, most of the DNA in your chromosomes doesn't code for jack that has anything to do with you. You are a mere side-effect, as are blades of grass, antelope, elephants, ants, E. coli, or whatever. Make more DNA - but first, make an elephant.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM

Poor Jojo. Chasing Steve, looks over shoulder, hoping to see rest of human race in pursuit. But all he can see behind him is one dead sheep and a couple of one-legged creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM

///Who's gaining on me, Jojo?///

Why, don't you know? The rest of the human race.

///Don't you know that we biologists still believe we can go faster than light?///

???

///Have you a thought?///

Yes, I use it as a paperweight.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:46 PM

You may, Spock-like, choose the mathematical definition all you like. But "random" is just one of them words that don't cut it any more in a biological context. It serves to cast mud (or heat, depending on how religious you happen to be) rather than light. You're an intelligent fellow. Break free of "random" and talk biological. You know it makes sense!

.....................................................................

Who's gaining on me, Jojo? Don't you know that we biologists still believe we can go faster than light? Have you a thought?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:06 PM

Foolestroupe

Modern Science has a strong mathematical base - you cannot choose one or the other - you need a term that is consistently describable by both.

I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:54 PM

Steve, they're gaining on you. Time to invoke your god Darwin. Hurry! Hurry!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

"The context is scientific. Surely the mathematical definition is the correct one to use."

Modern Science has a strong mathematical base - you cannot choose one or the other - you need a term that is consistently describable by both.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 05:24 PM

"Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. No agency involved - ie although there are causes, there is no *intention* in the cause. No radiation, no mutagens required - just a complex process that, by virtue of imperfection (ie, lack of design!), allows/provides a source of variation. And variation is the key to selection - can't pick and choose from one thing, there has to be a sampling."

You can't know that any given mutation doesn't have an external, environmental cause, no matter how subtle. For all we know they may all have external causes. This is somewhat simplistic.


"Most of those mutations, furthermore, are invisible to natural selection as they have no impact on survival or reproduction."

Any mutation that is expressed as the phenotype is visible to natural selection. A lethal mutation may not be visible to selection but it certainly has an impact on survival - it kills you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:15 PM

Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. No agency involved - ie although there are causes, there is no *intention* in the cause. No radiation, no mutagens required - just a complex process that, by virtue of imperfection (ie, lack of design!), allows/provides a source of variation. And variation is the key to selection - can't pick and choose from one thing, there has to be a sampling.

Most of those mutations, furthermore, are invisible to natural selection as they have no impact on survival or reproduction. But, because they happen at a measurable rate, we can use them to date speciation.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

Foolestroupe

If you had read my post about the 'matchbox computer to play hexpawn', you might understand why you are not getting the point.

OK, I've read it.(It was posted in this thread.) Can't really see the point you were trying to make at the time but it seems to be something to do with how natural selection works and hence nothing to do with the point I am making.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM

Steve Shaw

I agree that Tia's definition is a valid mathematical one (as she says). But the word is too fraught with difficulties to be useful in this context. It's best avoided.

The context is scientific. Surely the mathematical definition is the correct one to use. There are lots of words that have different meanings in science and general use. Ask someone if they drink alcohol and then hand them a glass of butanol. "Theory" causes a lot of problems. Must we stop talking about scientific theories so as not to confuse the public?

Talk of random mutations, when most if not all mutations have causes, whether identifiable or not, is loose talk.

That is getting close to a statement of faith. There is no science in it. I suggest you take a look at a couple of Uncle DaveO's posts here and here. You are very good at making categorical statements with a sort of priestly authority but back them up with little other than your own discomfort with the word random.

A while ago you said -
I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases,
to which I replied -
Really? Please provide references and examples.
I'm still waiting. Give us some science.

And show me where I said that mutations can't be unpredictable.

Given the mathematical definition of random, every time you say something like "The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

I agree that Tia's definition is a valid mathematical one (as she says). But the word is too fraught with difficulties to be useful in this context. It's best avoided. Talk of random mutations, when most if not all mutations have causes, whether identifiable or not, is loose talk.

And show me where I said that mutations can't be unpredictable.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:57 AM

Steve Shaw

I'm at a total loss as to how what I'm saying is comparable to what theists think.

The theists cannot accept that a complex universe can have arisen out of nothing so they invent an equally complex God to explain it.
You cannot accept that mutations are unpredictable so you invent unpredictable causes to explain their randomness.

Because I say it's well-nigh impossible to control inputs it doesn't mean that those inputs are random.

I'll try again.

Do you agree with TIA's definition of random -

mathematical meaning is: not deterministically predictable, but following a probability distribution?

If not, what is your definition?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:17 AM

I'm at a total loss as to how what I'm saying is comparable to what theists think. Because I say it's well-nigh impossible to control inputs it doesn't mean that those inputs are random. They are just not controlled. Random is the wrong word. Biology is not physics is what I'm saying. In some ways.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:11 PM

"But if it's a process requiring inputs, those inputs must be identical otherwise this doesn't apply. I'm saying that it's next to impossible to provide identical inputs into biological systems. There's far too much going on.

As I've already said, you've replaced random outcomes with random causes. The result is the same in practice, natural selection is presented with random mutations. It is natural selection that is non-random."

If you had read my post about the 'matchbox computer to play hexpawn', you might understand why you are not getting the point. That may have been posted in the 'God Delusion' thread.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:35 PM

In the absence of any answer to my question to Steve, I'll just have to use this -

But if it's a process requiring inputs, those inputs must be identical otherwise this doesn't apply. I'm saying that it's next to impossible to provide identical inputs into biological systems. There's far too much going on.

As I've already said, you've replaced random outcomes with random causes. The result is the same in practice, natural selection is presented with random mutations. It is natural selection that is non-random.

Your position is rather similar to the theists. They can't believe that anything as complex as the universe could arise by itself so they invent an equally complex creator with no explanation of where He came from.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:33 PM

Is that you, jojo? Neither is the truth and it all washes over. If you want me to hurt you're going to have try harder than that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:20 PM

Susan, I was glad to see that sentence fragment in your post:

But in my OT studies last week, I read that. . .

I'm really glad you're studying OT; we need more of those occupational therapists!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:45 PM

Not quite. Belief in *agency* (if something happens it's because something intentionally made it happen being a childhood falolacy stage) would necessarily have *preceded* our current human intelligence, leaving us with no choice but to think about it.

It's time to outgrow our evolutionary childhood and face the grown-up reality that some things just happen,like where the tornado touches down, and others have non-intentional causes, like thunder is caused but not intended by its cause.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:39 PM

"Whether pro or con, whether one-God, many-Gods, or NO-God, it appears that it is simply part of the human condition to think about it."

Could be, but that is still no indicator that there's anything in it. That's the trouble. Most people I know are scared of spiders, but, as all UK spiders are virtually harmless, the fear is irrational. Yet most people will stroke a dog, whose coat is laden with parasites and pathogens. Equally irrational, but OK, sort of (I'm a cat man meself, and they're just as bad). Huge numbers of people vote Tory. I rest my case.

Subject: Natural Theology
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM

I know it's late to wade into this discussion and I really do not have time to follow it or conribute with any regularity. And maybe this post has all been said, already-- hain't read more than the OP.

But in my OT studies last week, I read that human beings just have always had a tendency, at every point in our development, to think in terms of a more-powerful force acting upon humankind-- a tendency that evolved (when the human brain evolved to the point of it being feasible) into a predilection for theological thinking.

Whether pro or con, whether one-God, many-Gods, or NO-God, it appears that it is simply part of the human condition to think about it.

And of course since we are also pre-wired to be social creatures... when we think-- we talk.

:~) Now if we could just LIMIT the talking state of expression to the thinking state of being-- it would be a lot less conflict-ridden. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:33 PM

Conflate = confuse + inflate?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:43 AM

Amos - precisely.

I'm not only pissed with those, but especially with those who claim to know all those 'other meanings', but STILL jumble them up...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:47 PM

Robin:

I am not faulting the CS geeks for adopting the term. It was necessary. I am faulting those who, having been exposed only to the CS term or only to the stats term, pretend superiority over those who use it in its more general experiential sense.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:35 PM

"conflating the arguments, of their opponents here"

Conflate - to add together in a mixed up way?

Funny you should say that, it looks to me that the the sky fairy camps, well known for their ability to happily and stridently conflate contradicting semantic concepts (ideas) using the same and often inappropriate semantic label (word) are plagiarizing the misunderstood and misrepresented scientific concepts of their opponents to support their shaky logical position.

Of course, if one is intellectually incapable of thinking clear and straight anyway, they don't really care, for they KNOW those goddam atheists (whose ideas they really just can't ever comprehend) must be stupid... so they snigger at each other and laugh at the stupidity of their opponents ...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM

I suppose I'd rather be called a lamb than a militant, twisted, obsessive atheist. I just wish these Christian types would make their bloody minds up!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:04 PM

>>>"Some of the Athiests in this discussion seem to be conflating the arguments, of their opponents here.
No wonder they are lost lambs, they cannot tell the sheepdogs from the wolves."

Nonsensical gibberish - but got a quick laugh.<<

Nonsensical gibberish??

You apparently understood the point.
With the point made, names need not be named.