On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 1:47:39 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 11:46:00 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 10:51:06 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
> >
> > > ObSF: What if it had Crom's attitude about that sort of groveling?
> >
> > > https://hyboria.xoth.net/gods/crom.htm
> > Here in Edmonton, there is a neighborhood called Cromdale.
> >
> > Given the word Cromlech, I presume it derives from Scots
> > Gaelic, and has nothing directly to do with Conan the
> > Barbarian... but it's nice to think that Edmonton is home to
> > God's Country.
> Ah, that's Welsh, not Scots. And in Welsh, "Crom" means "bent".
>

Howard was influenced by tales of this fella:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crom_Cruach

--
Kevin R

On 2021-07-08 7:27 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 11:46 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:1d96c3e6-3e68-4b16-be82-417a6d44e829n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And, in fact, I remember reading a book about the OSS (in
>>>>> World War II) which noted that one of the ingenious inventions
>>>>> they made _was_ a silencer that not only rendered a gun
>>>>> whisper quiet, but also even concealed the flash of light from
>>>>> its firing.
>>>
>>>> The problem with making a silencer quiet is that the bullet,
>>>> long after it has left the silencer, trails a sonic boom. You
>>>> can't fix that with a silencer.
>>>
>>> True, but this thread mentions that subsonic bullets exist;
>>> perhaps this detail was still classified when the book I read
>>> was written (or, at least, the author felt it responsible not to
>>> go into detail). Wouldn't that solve that part of the problem?
>>>
>> You really should avoid ever talking about guns again. Literally
>> everything you say is not only wrong, but *stupidly* wrong.
>>
>> Dumbass.
>
> He is Canadian.  No guns allowed.
>
> Lynn
>

Canada has 31 guns per 100 residents.

On 6/21/2021 6:27 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:43ac5b89-d862-481f-9eb8-61c35c15dce3n@googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Paul S Person
>>>> J. Clarke
>>>>
>>>> Evething is disgusting to liberals. Except more and more and
>>>> more government control.
>>>
>>> And yet it is in /Texas/, hardly a liberal State whose Guv touts
>>> individual freedom, that people with "smart" thermostats are
>>> having them adjusted by the power company to save energy.
>>
>> That's not unique to Texas.
>
> Indeed. Californiastan was warning of possible blackouts during the
> heat wave last week. Again.
>
> And California isn't exactly a bastion of conservative politics, now
> is it?

Just wait until they shutdown the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants in
2024 and 2025. Each of those supplies 5% of California's electricity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

Lynn

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:19:04 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/21/2021 6:27 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:43ac5b89-d862-481f-9eb8-61c35c15dce3n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Paul S Person
>>>>> J. Clarke
>>>>>
>>>>> Evething is disgusting to liberals. Except more and more and
>>>>> more government control.
>>>>
>>>> And yet it is in /Texas/, hardly a liberal State whose Guv touts
>>>> individual freedom, that people with "smart" thermostats are
>>>> having them adjusted by the power company to save energy.
>>>
>>> That's not unique to Texas.
>>
>> Indeed. Californiastan was warning of possible blackouts during the
>> heat wave last week. Again.
>>
>> And California isn't exactly a bastion of conservative politics, now
>> is it?
>
>Just wait until they shutdown the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants in
>2024 and 2025. Each of those supplies 5% of California's electricity.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

The sad part is that the Californicans don't understand that their
"energy crisis" is entirely manufactured by their incompetent state
government and think that that's the way the rest of the world lives.

On 09/07/2021 12.45, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 10:51:06 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> ObSF: What if it had Crom's attitude about that sort of groveling?
>
>> https://hyboria.xoth.net/gods/crom.htm
>
> Here in Edmonton, there is a neighborhood called Cromdale.

I'm sure that it's a perfectly cromulent neighborhood.

--
Michael F. Stemper
I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578-b6be-12d491557f95n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>> >Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>>> >> >>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>>> >> >>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that
>>> >> >>this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when
>>> >> >>arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on other
>>> >> >>matters by classifying them as "deeply held religious
>>> >> >>beliefs".
>>> >> >
>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held
>>> >> religious belief." And they *really* hate it when someone
>>> >> points that out. --
>>> >
>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered anything
>>> >we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such (a) being(s)
>>> >absolutely does not exist." - (or even can't!)
>>> >
>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being who
>>> had verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of
>>> everything that would happen in it and the ability to make any
>>> arbitrary change at will, they would refuse address that entity
>>> as "God". Presumably part of said being's plan is that they not
>>> do that after which they turn into frogs or some such.
>>
>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>
>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just don't
>understand the difference, or you are deliberately trying to
>decieve people.
>
>Or both.

Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.

You really should consider that in these situations.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 11:29:34 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2021 12:21:32 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >>> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>> >>> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you are
>> >>> >>>> referring to, it may be useful to consider "deeply held
>> >>> >>>> religious belief" as a possible explanation.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises that this
>> >>> >>is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so when arguing, he
>> >>> >>tries to criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>> >>> >>classifying them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
>> >>> >
>> >>> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>> >>> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held religious
>> >>> belief." And they *really* hate it when someone points that out.
>> >>> --
>> >>
>> >>There's a difference between "we haven't encountered anything
>> >>we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such (a) being(s) absolutely
>> >>does not exist." - (or even can't!)
>> >>
>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
>> >
>> >I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being who had
>> >verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of everything that
>> >would happen in it and the ability to make any arbitrary change at
>> >will, they would refuse address that entity as "God". Presumably part
>> >of said being's plan is that they not do that after which they turn
>> >into frogs or some such.
>> Ah.
>>
>> They have adopted the definition of "omniscent": "whatever God knows
>> happens, happens".
>>
>> As opposed to the more common definition: "whatever happens, God knows
>> happens".
>>
>> And they had the metaphysical courage to apply it to themselves!
>> Bravo!
>
>Perhaps they were use to arguing with certain flavors of
>theist who are gung-ho for predestination: hard-core Calvinists,
>say.

Calvinists mostly do not apply it to themselves -- or, rather, they
adopt the position that the very fact that they are believers (and
economically successful) shows that they are saved.

This has good and bad aspects. On the good side, it fueled the
Protestant Work Ethic, which is basically a way to prove to the
individual and those around him is saved by being economically
successful. On the bad side, it categorizes the poor, the struggling,
and the lazy as predestined to hell and so not worth helping -- an
attitude underlying every attack on social services, including the
recent assertion that enhanced UE is keeping people from working.

>Even if I were convinced of a ghod's existence, worshiping it or
>making supplication could be risky.
>
>ObSF: What if it had Crom's attitude about that sort of groveling?
>
>https://hyboria.xoth.net/gods/crom.htm
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4qoirnn44g98hle1s73@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578-b6be-12d491557f95n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>>> >Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
>>>> >> >>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
>>>> >> >>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
>>>> >> >>>> explanation.
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
>>>> >> >>that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so
>>>> >> >>when arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on
>>>> >> >>other matters by classifying them as "deeply held
>>>> >> >>religious beliefs".
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held
>>>> >> religious belief." And they *really* hate it when someone
>>>> >> points that out. --
>>>> >
>>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
>>>> >(a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even can't!)
>>>> >
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabilit
>>>> >y
>>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being
>>>> who had verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of
>>>> everything that would happen in it and the ability to make
>>>> any arbitrary change at will, they would refuse address that
>>>> entity as "God". Presumably part of said being's plan is that
>>>> they not do that after which they turn into frogs or some
>>>> such.
>>>
>>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>>
>>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>>distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
>>don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately trying
>>to decieve people.
>>
>>Or both.
>
> Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>
> You really should consider that in these situations.

I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held religious
belief for some.

But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse of the
word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of what the
ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to "he's too stupid
to know the difference or he's lying." As I said.

You, of course, are even stupider.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:sc88m9$nh2$1@dont-email.me:

> On 6/27/2021 11:46 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:1d96c3e6-3e68-4b16-be82-417a6d44e829n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And, in fact, I remember reading a book about the OSS (in
>>>>> World War II) which noted that one of the ingenious
>>>>> inventions they made _was_ a silencer that not only rendered
>>>>> a gun whisper quiet, but also even concealed the flash of
>>>>> light from its firing.
>>>
>>>> The problem with making a silencer quiet is that the bullet,
>>>> long after it has left the silencer, trails a sonic boom. You
>>>> can't fix that with a silencer.
>>>
>>> True, but this thread mentions that subsonic bullets exist;
>>> perhaps this detail was still classified when the book I read
>>> was written (or, at least, the author felt it responsible not
>>> to go into detail). Wouldn't that solve that part of the
>>> problem?
>>>
>> You really should avoid ever talking about guns again.
>> Literally everything you say is not only wrong, but *stupidly*
>> wrong.
>>
>> Dumbass.
>
> He is Canadian. No guns allowed.
>
No indepenent thought allowed.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2021-07-10 11:03 a.m., Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4qoirnn44g98hle1s73@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>>> news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578-b6be-12d491557f95n@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>>>>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
>>>>>>>>>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
>>>>>>>>>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
>>>>>>>>> that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so
>>>>>>>>> when arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on
>>>>>>>>> other matters by classifying them as "deeply held
>>>>>>>>> religious beliefs".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>>>>>> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held
>>>>>>> religious belief." And they *really* hate it when someone
>>>>>>> points that out. --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>>>>>> anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
>>>>>> (a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even can't!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabilit
>>>>>> y
>>>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being
>>>>> who had verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of
>>>>> everything that would happen in it and the ability to make
>>>>> any arbitrary change at will, they would refuse address that
>>>>> entity as "God". Presumably part of said being's plan is that
>>>>> they not do that after which they turn into frogs or some
>>>>> such.
>>>>
>>>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>>>
>>> You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>>> distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
>>> don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately trying
>>> to decieve people.
>>>
>>> Or both.
>>
>> Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>>
>> You really should consider that in these situations.
>
> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held religious
> belief for some.

Not for anyone who actually understands what "atheism" and "religious"
actually mean.

>
> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse of the
> word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of what the
> ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to "he's too stupid
> to know the difference or he's lying." As I said.
>
> You, of course, are even stupider.
>

On 2021-07-10 11:04 a.m., Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:sc88m9$nh2$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 6/27/2021 11:46 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> news:1d96c3e6-3e68-4b16-be82-417a6d44e829n@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And, in fact, I remember reading a book about the OSS (in
>>>>>> World War II) which noted that one of the ingenious
>>>>>> inventions they made _was_ a silencer that not only rendered
>>>>>> a gun whisper quiet, but also even concealed the flash of
>>>>>> light from its firing.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with making a silencer quiet is that the bullet,
>>>>> long after it has left the silencer, trails a sonic boom. You
>>>>> can't fix that with a silencer.
>>>>
>>>> True, but this thread mentions that subsonic bullets exist;
>>>> perhaps this detail was still classified when the book I read
>>>> was written (or, at least, the author felt it responsible not
>>>> to go into detail). Wouldn't that solve that part of the
>>>> problem?
>>>>
>>> You really should avoid ever talking about guns again.
>>> Literally everything you say is not only wrong, but *stupidly*
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Dumbass.
>>
>> He is Canadian. No guns allowed.
>>
> No indepenent thought allowed.
>

LOL!

Irony!

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 10:12:48 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2021-07-08 7:27 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 6/27/2021 11:46 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >> news:1d96c3e6-3e68-4b16...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> And, in fact, I remember reading a book about the OSS (in
> >>>>> World War II) which noted that one of the ingenious inventions
> >>>>> they made _was_ a silencer that not only rendered a gun
> >>>>> whisper quiet, but also even concealed the flash of light from
> >>>>> its firing.
> >>>
> >>>> The problem with making a silencer quiet is that the bullet,
> >>>> long after it has left the silencer, trails a sonic boom. You
> >>>> can't fix that with a silencer.
> >>>
> >>> True, but this thread mentions that subsonic bullets exist;
> >>> perhaps this detail was still classified when the book I read
> >>> was written (or, at least, the author felt it responsible not to
> >>> go into detail). Wouldn't that solve that part of the problem?
> >>>
> >> You really should avoid ever talking about guns again. Literally
> >> everything you say is not only wrong, but *stupidly* wrong.
> >>
> >> Dumbass.
> >
> > He is Canadian. No guns allowed.
> >
> > Lynn
> >
> Canada has 31 guns per 100 residents.

But surely 31 = 0? Has budget math taught us nothing?

William Hyde

On 7/8/2021 8:27 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 11:46 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:1d96c3e6-3e68-4b16-be82-417a6d44e829n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And, in fact, I remember reading a book about the OSS (in
>>>>> World War II) which noted that one of the ingenious inventions
>>>>> they made _was_ a silencer that not only rendered a gun
>>>>> whisper quiet, but also even concealed the flash of light from
>>>>> its firing.
>>>
>>>> The problem with making a silencer quiet is that the bullet,
>>>> long after it has left the silencer, trails a sonic boom. You
>>>> can't fix that with a silencer.
>>>
>>> True, but this thread mentions that subsonic bullets exist;
>>> perhaps this detail was still classified when the book I read
>>> was written (or, at least, the author felt it responsible not to
>>> go into detail). Wouldn't that solve that part of the problem?
>>>
>> You really should avoid ever talking about guns again. Literally
>> everything you say is not only wrong, but *stupidly* wrong.
>>
>> Dumbass.
>
> He is Canadian.  No guns allowed.
>
> Lynn
>

They actually have a NRA equivalent, just not as effective. National
Firearm Association, https://nfa.ca/

I've sometimes thought about joining just for grins.

On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> >>>> >Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>> >> >>>>
> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
> >>>> >> >>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
> >>>> >> >>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
> >>>> >> >>>> explanation.
> >>>> >> >>>>
> >>>> >> >>>
> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
> >>>> >> >>that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so
> >>>> >> >>when arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on
> >>>> >> >>other matters by classifying them as "deeply held
> >>>> >> >>religious beliefs".
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held
> >>>> >> religious belief." And they *really* hate it when someone
> >>>> >> points that out. --
> >>>> >
> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
> >>>> >(a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even can't!)
> >>>> >
> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabilit
> >>>> >y
> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being
> >>>> who had verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of
> >>>> everything that would happen in it and the ability to make
> >>>> any arbitrary change at will, they would refuse address that
> >>>> entity as "God". Presumably part of said being's plan is that
> >>>> they not do that after which they turn into frogs or some
> >>>> such.
> >>>
> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
> >>
> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
> >>distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
> >>don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately trying
> >>to decieve people.
> >>
> >>Or both.
> >
> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
> >
> > You really should consider that in these situations.
> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held religious
> belief for some.
>
> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse of the
> word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of what the
> ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to "he's too stupid
> to know the difference or he's lying." As I said.
>
> You, of course, are even stupider.

Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.

Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
in whether a person does or does not conduct
themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
the priests. It is your words and deeds that
constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
as your thoughts initiate your actions.

Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
>> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> >>>> >Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
>> >>>> >> >>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
>> >>>> >> >>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
>> >>>> >> >>>> explanation.
>> >>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>> >> >>>
>> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
>> >>>> >> >>that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so
>> >>>> >> >>when arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on
>> >>>> >> >>other matters by classifying them as "deeply held
>> >>>> >> >>religious beliefs".
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held
>> >>>> >> religious belief." And they *really* hate it when someone
>> >>>> >> points that out. --
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
>> >>>> >(a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even can't!)
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabilit
>> >>>> >y
>> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being
>> >>>> who had verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of
>> >>>> everything that would happen in it and the ability to make
>> >>>> any arbitrary change at will, they would refuse address that
>> >>>> entity as "God". Presumably part of said being's plan is that
>> >>>> they not do that after which they turn into frogs or some
>> >>>> such.
>> >>>
>> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>> >>
>> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>> >>distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
>> >>don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately trying
>> >>to decieve people.
>> >>
>> >>Or both.
>> >
>> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>> >
>> > You really should consider that in these situations.
>> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held religious
>> belief for some.
>>
>> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse of the
>> word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of what the
>> ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to "he's too stupid
>> to know the difference or he's lying." As I said.
>>
>> You, of course, are even stupider.
>
>Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.
>
>Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>in whether a person does or does not conduct
>themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>
>Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.

Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their faith
that the gods do not want to be worshipped?

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
> >> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> >> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
> >> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> >> >>>> >Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
> >> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
> >> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
> >> >>>> >> >>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
> >> >>>> >> >>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
> >> >>>> >> >>>> explanation.
> >> >>>> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> >> >>>
> >> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
> >> >>>> >> >>that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so
> >> >>>> >> >>when arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on
> >> >>>> >> >>other matters by classifying them as "deeply held
> >> >>>> >> >>religious beliefs".
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
> >> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held
> >> >>>> >> religious belief." And they *really* hate it when someone
> >> >>>> >> points that out. --
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
> >> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
> >> >>>> >(a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even can't!)
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabilit
> >> >>>> >y
> >> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being
> >> >>>> who had verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of
> >> >>>> everything that would happen in it and the ability to make
> >> >>>> any arbitrary change at will, they would refuse address that
> >> >>>> entity as "God". Presumably part of said being's plan is that
> >> >>>> they not do that after which they turn into frogs or some
> >> >>>> such.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
> >> >>
> >> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
> >> >>distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
> >> >>don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately trying
> >> >>to decieve people.
> >> >>
> >> >>Or both.
> >> >
> >> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
> >> >
> >> > You really should consider that in these situations.
> >> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held religious
> >> belief for some.
> >>
> >> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse of the
> >> word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of what the
> >> ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to "he's too stupid
> >> to know the difference or he's lying." As I said.
> >>
> >> You, of course, are even stupider.
> >
> >Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.
> >
> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
> >
> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their faith
> that the gods do not want to be worshipped?

That is tricky. But I hold that if the Almighty is
indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
word "god" means. The word really refers to a
relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
a husband by yourself, other people need to
be involved.

I have used the word "celebrity" as an alternative,
but I suppose that your god-of-privacy doesn't
want to be that, either.

There are religions such as of course Buddhism
in which, as I understand it, the cosmic celebrities
don't need to be acknowledged and generally don't
concern themselves with human morality. I think
there are different schools of thought on this, so that
you can try to win a favour from a god for something
that you want, but it seems to be contrary to Buddhism
to want anything. I mean you want your dinner I suppose
but you can't even count on that... strict Buddhists either
don't have dinner, or have it at lunch time, if that counts.

Indeed, some other gods seem to be content
to be worshipped - sacrificed to etc. - only when
you want something. However, the form of god
that seems to be dominant nowadays is one that
(1) needs to be worshipped all the time, (2) forbids
worshipping other gods, and (3) you have to make
everybody else do it too. You can sort of see why.

In the absence of a national religion, the priests
of these gods have cordial relations despite their
contrary doctrines, and often meet together and
throw stones at atheists' windows.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:29:50 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:

>On 2021-07-10 11:03 a.m., Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4qoirnn44g98hle1s73@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>>>> news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578-b6be-12d491557f95n@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>>>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>>>>>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
>>>>>>>>>>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
>>>>>>>>>>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
>>>>>>>>>> that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so
>>>>>>>>>> when arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions on
>>>>>>>>>> other matters by classifying them as "deeply held
>>>>>>>>>> religious beliefs".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>>>>>>> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply held
>>>>>>>> religious belief." And they *really* hate it when someone
>>>>>>>> points that out. --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>>>>>>> anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
>>>>>>> (a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even can't!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabilit
>>>>>>> y
>>>>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a being
>>>>>> who had verifiably created the Universe with foreknowledge of
>>>>>> everything that would happen in it and the ability to make
>>>>>> any arbitrary change at will, they would refuse address that
>>>>>> entity as "God". Presumably part of said being's plan is that
>>>>>> they not do that after which they turn into frogs or some
>>>>>> such.
>>>>>
>>>>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>>>>
>>>> You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>>>> distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
>>>> don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately trying
>>>> to decieve people.
>>>>
>>>> Or both.
>>>
>>> Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>>>
>>> You really should consider that in these situations.
>>
>> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held religious
>> belief for some.
>
>Not for anyone who actually understands what "atheism" and "religious"
>actually mean.

You are confusing "religious" with something else.

Or, at least, are using it in a sense different from that in "deeply
held religious belief".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:30:15 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> That is tricky. But I hold that if the Almighty is
> indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
> in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
> word "god" means.

Then we're not speaking the same language.

The word "God" means, to me, and I think according
to the dictionary, an omnipotent and omniscient Being
Who is also the First Cause - the Creator of all that is.

The word "god", on the other hand, means an immortal
and powerful being who is one of many who together
posess some of the attributes of God.

If one holds that both God and gods are entirely
fictional, and only exist in the sense that we've made
them up, then for the most part they indeed only
exist to be worshipped, but this is... historical, not
definitional.

John Savard

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 17:09:48 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:30:15 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > That is tricky. But I hold that if the Almighty is
> > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
> > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
> > word "god" means.
> Then we're not speaking the same language.
>
> The word "God" means, to me, and I think according
> to the dictionary, an omnipotent and omniscient Being
> Who is also the First Cause - the Creator of all that is.
>
> The word "god", on the other hand, means an immortal
> and powerful being who is one of many who together
> posess some of the attributes of God.
>
> If one holds that both God and gods are entirely
> fictional, and only exist in the sense that we've made
> them up, then for the most part they indeed only
> exist to be worshipped, but this is... historical, not
> definitional.

Perhaps the dictionary or the encyclopedia are not the
best books to consult to explain gods.

Nevertheless <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge>
- again - is a Creator recognised by major philosophers
who is /not/ a god, and even is believed by some people
to be in opposition to the big-g God.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism> considers a "god"
who apparently created the material world and then
"stepped away" to let it run, without intervening.
Some people with this point of view worshipped this
person, some did not. His name was still God, regardless.
"Demiurge" didn't catch on, particularly.

The Sun gives the Earth the energy which made it
possible for life to begin and to continue on this planet.
But it does not do so with the intention or expectation
of being worshipped. I think that therefore it's excused
from being considered to be a god; don't you?

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:2316ae16-c7f9-4923-983d-617fc5bc000dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
> wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
>> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>> >>>> >Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
>> >>>> >> >>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
>> >>>> >> >>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
>> >>>> >> >>>> explanation.
>> >>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>> >> >>>
>> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking
>> >>>> >> >>> about.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
>> >>>> >> >>that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking
>> >>>> >> >>so when arguing, he tries to criticise people's
>> >>>> >> >>opinions on other matters by classifying them as
>> >>>> >> >>"deeply held religious beliefs".
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply
>> >>>> >> held religious belief." And they *really* hate it when
>> >>>> >> someone points that out. --
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
>> >>>> >(a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even
>> >>>> >can't!)
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabi
>> >>>> >lit y
>> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a
>> >>>> being who had verifiably created the Universe with
>> >>>> foreknowledge of everything that would happen in it and
>> >>>> the ability to make any arbitrary change at will, they
>> >>>> would refuse address that entity as "God". Presumably part
>> >>>> of said being's plan is that they not do that after which
>> >>>> they turn into frogs or some such.
>> >>>
>> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>> >>
>> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>> >>distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
>> >>don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately
>> >>trying to decieve people.
>> >>
>> >>Or both.
>> >
>> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>> >
>> > You really should consider that in these situations.
>> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held
>> religious belief for some.
>>
>> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse of
>> the word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of what
>> the ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to "he's too
>> stupid to know the difference or he's lying." As I said.
>>
>> You, of course, are even stupider.
>
> Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.

Your definition of atheism above works pretty well. It's the
defiition in common usage in the english speaking world. Despite
your attempts to hijack the word atheism for your own twiested
ends.
>
> Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
> in whether a person does or does not conduct
> themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
> the priests. It is your words and deeds that
> constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
> as your thoughts initiate your actions.

That is not the case for some pretty major parts of Christianity.
Like Catholocism, for instance. As usual with foaming at the mouth
religion haters, you know nothing about what you hate. You are, as
it were, not only an atheist whose atheism is a religious belief
(in defiance of actual reality), you're a militant, even fantatical
one. Not much different than, say, Fred Phelps of the Westboro
Baptist Church.
>
> Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>
Apparently, you're the category of "too stupid to grasp the
difference between 'not believe' and 'believe not'." Or perhaps
you're just self conscious about how rare actual atheists are, and
want to conflate agnosticism with it to feel less like a freak. Or
maybe you're just a dick. Or, I guess, those aren't necessarily
"or" conditions. Perhaps you all three.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:rjlleglr77k9vibv2k3t9s2pe3ko4r2kar@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
>>wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
>>> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>>> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>>> >>>> >Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >> >
>>> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what
>>> >>>> >> >>>> you are referring to, it may be useful to
>>> >>>> >> >>>> consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>>> >>>> >> >>>> possible explanation.
>>> >>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking
>>> >>>> >> >>> about.
>>> >>>> >> >>
>>> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he
>>> >>>> >> >>realises that this is stupidity as it restricts his
>>> >>>> >> >>thinking so when arguing, he tries to criticise
>>> >>>> >> >>people's opinions on other matters by classifying
>>> >>>> >> >>them as "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>> >>>> >> >
>>> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply
>>> >>>> >> held religious belief." And they *really* hate it when
>>> >>>> >> someone points that out. --
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>>> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and
>>> >>>> >"such (a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or
>>> >>>> >even can't!)
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probab
>>> >>>> >ilit y
>>> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a
>>> >>>> being who had verifiably created the Universe with
>>> >>>> foreknowledge of everything that would happen in it and
>>> >>>> the ability to make any arbitrary change at will, they
>>> >>>> would refuse address that entity as "God". Presumably
>>> >>>> part of said being's plan is that they not do that after
>>> >>>> which they turn into frogs or some such.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>>> >>
>>> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>>> >>distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
>>> >>don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately
>>> >>trying to decieve people.
>>> >>
>>> >>Or both.
>>> >
>>> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>>> >
>>> > You really should consider that in these situations.
>>> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held
>>> religious belief for some.
>>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse of
>>> the word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of what
>>> the ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to "he's too
>>> stupid to know the difference or he's lying." As I said.
>>>
>>> You, of course, are even stupider.
>>
>>Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.
>>
>>Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>>in whether a person does or does not conduct
>>themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>>the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>>constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>>as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>>
>>Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>
> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
>
Even Catholics, whose doctrine is that acting on sinful thoughts is
no more or less a sin than having them.

He knows nothing of what he hates, only that he's been
indoctrinated to hate it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc-8cd9-1058c7f573c0n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
>> >wrote:
>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
>> >> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> >> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> >> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>> >> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>> >> >>>> >Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>> >> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>> >> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> >> >
>> >> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> >>>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what
>> >> >>>> >> >>>> you are referring to, it may be useful to
>> >> >>>> >> >>>> consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>> >> >>>> >> >>>> possible explanation.
>> >> >>>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking
>> >> >>>> >> >>> about.
>> >> >>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he
>> >> >>>> >> >>realises that this is stupidity as it restricts
>> >> >>>> >> >>his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
>> >> >>>> >> >>criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>> >> >>>> >> >>classifying them as "deeply held religious
>> >> >>>> >> >>beliefs".
>> >> >>>> >> >
>> >> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>> >> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply
>> >> >>>> >> held religious belief." And they *really* hate it
>> >> >>>> >> when someone points that out. --
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>> >> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and
>> >> >>>> >"such (a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or
>> >> >>>> >even can't!)
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_prob
>> >> >>>> >abilit y
>> >> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a
>> >> >>>> being who had verifiably created the Universe with
>> >> >>>> foreknowledge of everything that would happen in it and
>> >> >>>> the ability to make any arbitrary change at will, they
>> >> >>>> would refuse address that entity as "God". Presumably
>> >> >>>> part of said being's plan is that they not do that
>> >> >>>> after which they turn into frogs or some such.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid
>> >> >>to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you
>> >> >>just don't understand the difference, or you are
>> >> >>deliberately trying to decieve people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Or both.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>> >> >
>> >> > You really should consider that in these situations.
>> >> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held
>> >> religious belief for some.
>> >>
>> >> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse
>> >> of the word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of
>> >> what the ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to
>> >> "he's too stupid to know the difference or he's lying." As I
>> >> said.
>> >>
>> >> You, of course, are even stupider.
>> >
>> >Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.
>> >
>> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
>> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>> >
>> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
>> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
>
> That is tricky.

That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.

> But I hold that if the Almighty is
> indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
> in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
> word "god" means. The word really refers to a
> relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
> a husband by yourself, other people need to
> be involved.

Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
*dishonest*.

But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:73a710e2-1180-4e96-90e9-cb42da6b691bn@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:30:15 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie
> wrote:
>
>> That is tricky. But I hold that if the Almighty is
>> indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>> in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>> word "god" means.
>
> Then we're not speaking the same language.

He's speaking the language of "I'm a two year old with a dirty diaper
throwing a temper tantrum because I can't have my way."

I'd think you were quite fluent in that language.

> The word "god", on the other hand, means an immortal
> and powerful being

That means the Norse gods are not gods, since they all die in the
end.

The only objective definition of the word is "that which we call a
god."

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:293megl7682uaidjvns1240vlc3sodhh6l@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:29:50 -0700, Alan Baker
> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>
>>On 2021-07-10 11:03 a.m., Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4qoirnn44g98hle1s73@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578-b6be-12d491557f95n@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>>>>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>>>>>>>> Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are referring to, it may be useful to consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deeply held religious belief" as a possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking
>>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he realises
>>>>>>>>>>> that this is stupidity as it restricts his thinking so
>>>>>>>>>>> when arguing, he tries to criticise people's opinions
>>>>>>>>>>> on other matters by classifying them as "deeply held
>>>>>>>>>>> religious beliefs".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>>>>>>>> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply
>>>>>>>>> held religious belief." And they *really* hate it when
>>>>>>>>> someone points that out. --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>>>>>>>> anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and "such
>>>>>>>> (a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or even
>>>>>>>> can't!)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabi
>>>>>>>> lit y
>>>>>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a
>>>>>>> being who had verifiably created the Universe with
>>>>>>> foreknowledge of everything that would happen in it and
>>>>>>> the ability to make any arbitrary change at will, they
>>>>>>> would refuse address that entity as "God". Presumably part
>>>>>>> of said being's plan is that they not do that after which
>>>>>>> they turn into frogs or some such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid to
>>>>> distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you just
>>>>> don't understand the difference, or you are deliberately
>>>>> trying to decieve people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or both.
>>>>
>>>> Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>>>>
>>>> You really should consider that in these situations.
>>>
>>> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held
>>> religious belief for some.
>>
>>Not for anyone who actually understands what "atheism" and
>>"religious" actually mean.
>
> You are confusing "religious" with something else.

Of course he is. Those are just two of the *many* words he doesn't
know the meaning of.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 17:09:48 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:30:15 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> > That is tricky. But I hold that if the Almighty is
>> > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>> > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>> > word "god" means.
>> Then we're not speaking the same language.
>>
>> The word "God" means, to me, and I think according
>> to the dictionary, an omnipotent and omniscient Being
>> Who is also the First Cause - the Creator of all that is.
>>
>> The word "god", on the other hand, means an immortal
>> and powerful being who is one of many who together
>> posess some of the attributes of God.
>>
>> If one holds that both God and gods are entirely
>> fictional, and only exist in the sense that we've made
>> them up, then for the most part they indeed only
>> exist to be worshipped, but this is... historical, not
>> definitional.
>
>Perhaps the dictionary or the encyclopedia are not the
>best books to consult to explain gods.

It's amazing how ... lacking ... the dictionary or the encyclopedia
are when they disagree with our preferred meanings.

Been there, done that. And will probably do it again, from time to
time.

>Nevertheless <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge>
>- again - is a Creator recognised by major philosophers
>who is /not/ a god, and even is believed by some people
>to be in opposition to the big-g God.

Well, Plato and his followers, anyway. Plotinus was part of this
group. And it includes the Gnostics, as the article points out.

The volume on Ptolemy, Copernicus and Kepler in the collection known
as The Great Books of the Western World includes an essay which argues
that the world (solar system + sphere of stars, ie, universe) created
by the demiurge was, in fact, heliocentric.

><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism> considers a "god"
>who apparently created the material world and then
>"stepped away" to let it run, without intervening.
>Some people with this point of view worshipped this
>person, some did not. His name was still God, regardless.
>"Demiurge" didn't catch on, particularly.

The Demiurge is not the One.

Originally, this was a "clockwork mechanism" view of reality: God the
Clockmaker created the world, wound it up, started it going, and moved
on to other things. This is, of course, necessarily deterministic
(just as a mechanical clock is) and long-since outdated as science has
marched on. What they believe nowadays I have no idea.

>The Sun gives the Earth the energy which made it
>possible for life to begin and to continue on this planet.
>But it does not do so with the intention or expectation
>of being worshipped. I think that therefore it's excused
>from being considered to be a god; don't you?

And not only the Sun but also the Moon very commonly /were/ worshipped
as gods by the pagans.

/We/ may not consider it a god, but plenty of people did in the past.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."