Koyaanisqatsi

Although others have effectively illuminated the fallacies of your declarative, I thought I'd throw my two cents in to bury this horse.

I fail to see the reason you have (a) made such an observation, since it only serves to further indict anybody who preaches and or witnesses in general (aka, christians), and (b) why you think that putting quotation marks around the words preaching and witnessing is in any manner an indictment of the "plenty of...atheists" here.

It isn't possible to preach or witness atheism, since it is nothing more than a lack of beliefs in a god or gods.

What would "we" be preaching and/or witnessing?

You knew this, of course, which is why you put quotation marks around them in order to imply some form of loosely comparitive, hypocritical action you misperceive on the part of "plenty of" atheists around here.

<ol type="1">[*] What would this "logical corollary" be?[*] Who is making the claim "it is preaching?"[/list=a]

Isn't it more probable that what you are calling a "logical corollary," is in fact nothing more than an unsupportable claim based upon cult indoctrination and that any alleged accusations of "preaching" result from this fact?

That no one here has to my knowledge...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Are you claiming that somebody here is biased against examining evidence for the factual existence of the, as you put it, "supernatural" or that somebody here refuses to examine evidence for the factual existence of the "supernatural," and that this alleged bias or refusal is in some way counterbalanced by the unexamined beliefs (i.e., mere acceptance as true in spite of the lack of evidence) of the factual existence of the "supernatural," whatever the hell that may be?

I wouldn't even know where to begin, if this is the case.

<ol type="1">[*] What do you mean by the term "supernatural"?[*] What evidence do you have that such a concept factually exists?[*] Who here refuses to examine that evidence due to their alleged bias?[*] What would be the basis for this alleged bias?[/list=a]

That should at least clarify some things, yes?

No, there is not.

This, too, implies that you see evidence of some sort of hypocritical posturing here--as if "we" are misapplying certain rules and/or regulations of some kind.

If we point out to you that you are incorrect in your assumptions regarding, for example, the Federal Rules of Evidence you incorrectly cited above, that just means you are wrong.

How would anybody here be "hypocritical" for pointing out how you have simply misunderstood something that you are, apparently, about to base an invalid argument upon?

And?



You offered no sarcasm nor ridicule nor even a coherent argument.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>