Thrown out of an FBO...

Grumman-581 wrote in
news
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
up in the religions I know of, exist.

OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???

For what reasons would you have to kill someone? Self-defense is appropriate.
"Nuking the whole Middle East", as you indicated in a recent post, would not
be classified as self defense, however. It would instead be classified as
Genocide.

Evidently, you believe Genocide is appropriate for anyone who lives in a
region of the world that includes any people who scare you.

This parrallels the belief that Genocide is appropriate for anyone who
subscribes to a religion that includes people who scare you.

That should make you a target of your own fear and aggression...

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
...

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

It's possible. But not likely. Atheism is not absence of religion.

"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

The difference being that no one would ever claim that stamps don't
exsist.


Oh? Take a look at Emmanuel Kant for an example.

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
up in the religions I know of, exist.

OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???


I think that was Timothy Leary.


--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

Judah,

But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:


Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
not possible.

Oh, and scientists generally can "believe" all they want - during their
time off the job. "Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Judah,

But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:


Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
not possible.

Oh, and scientists generally can "believe" all they want - during their
time off the job. "Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.

I didn't say outside the realm of possibility. Only the realm of probability.
Carl Jung used the term Synchronicity to describe coincidental but meaningful
events that were uniquely improbable. It is a scientific principle that has
no basis in the scientific method... In fact I believe that Psychology is one
of the least scientific of the accepted medical sciences.

Scientists theories are beliefs until they are proven using the scientific
method. If a theory never get proven, it may remain a dogmatic belief.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:21:23 +0000, Judah wrote:
For what reasons would you have to kill someone? Self-defense is
appropriate. "Nuking the whole Middle East", as you indicated in a
recent post, would not be classified as self defense, however. It would
instead be classified as Genocide.

Nawh, it's called a premptive strike... They won't be satisfied until
we're dead, so it only makes sense to get them first...

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:49:57 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
I think that was Timothy Leary.

Damn... And I thought I was being original... grin

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1163539109.157714.99560
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point:
snip

Your example doesn't work. I don't think gay couples are asking to have the
right to have sex in public.

A better example might be if people who don't wash their hands after they pee
were to ask for the same right to eat in the Fancy Restaurant as those who do
wash their hands after they pee. I have been to plenty of fancy restaurants
and observed people who didn't wash their hands after they peed, and yet they
were not asked to leave the restaurant for their actions, even when there was
a valet in the bathroom as a witness. Personally, I prefer not to eat food
with pee-covered hands, but I certainly don't believe it's my responsibility
to try to prevent other people from eating their own pee if they so choose.
My wife, on the other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action
EXTREMELY disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash
his or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant.

Nonetheless, the non-hand-washing-after-peeing members of society have not
been refused service for their actions, because those actions are performed
in private.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:21:23 GMT, Judah wrote:

For what reasons would you have to kill someone? Self-defense is appropriate.
"Nuking the whole Middle East", as you indicated in a recent post, would not
be classified as self defense, however. It would instead be classified as
Genocide.

Evidently, you believe Genocide is appropriate for anyone who lives in a
region of the world that includes any people who scare you.

This parrallels the belief that Genocide is appropriate for anyone who
subscribes to a religion that includes people who scare you.

It would seem to me to be an excellent argument for taking care not to
scare him.

For me, deadly force is appropriate for eliminating threats to my
children and grandchildren.

So, cultures who make a point of threatening those I love are
appropriate for neutralization. It is not necessary to kill them all,
but we are entirely justified in denying them the technology for doing
us harm.

Don




Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:53:29 +0000, Judah wrote:
Personally, I prefer not to eat food with pee-covered hands, but I
certainly don't believe it's my responsibility to try to prevent other
people from eating their own pee if they so choose. My wife, on the
other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action EXTREMELY
disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash his
or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant.

Sounds like your wife needs to understand that it is actually possible to
go to the bathroom without peeing all over your own hands... Oh well, it's
probably just a guy thing... Women wouldn't understand that it is possible
since they can't write their name in the snow...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"