Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Atheists Choose Sanity
14 views
Skip to first unread message
felix_unger
Mar 5, 2012, 7:35:06 PM3/5/12
to
On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
> In article
> <89be2010-8c47-4085...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> BroilJAB<Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> They knowingly choose Hell.
> Since atheists
not only atheists
> have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
> anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should consider
it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable assumptions or
evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no necessity, and
certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
“It doesn't matter [who the leader is] the Labor Party is rotten, the policies stink, the lies insufferable, and the waste intolerable. The Muppets could do a better job!”
“All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
“What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. At the end of the day, we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
“Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
> In article
> <89be2010-8c47-4085...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> BroilJAB<Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> They knowingly choose Hell.
> Since atheists
not only atheists
> have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
> anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should consider
it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable assumptions or
evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no necessity, and
certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
“It doesn't matter [who the leader is] the Labor Party is rotten, the policies stink, the lies insufferable, and the waste intolerable. The Muppets could do a better job!”
“All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
“What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. At the end of the day, we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
“Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
Theo Bekkers
Mar 6, 2012, 4:24:21 AM3/6/12
to
"felix_unger" wrote
> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
> about it.
So you're an atheist then?
Theo
> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
> about it.
Theo
Barry OGrady
Mar 6, 2012, 4:43:00 AM3/6/12
to
>Theo
=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 6, 2012, 6:37:24 AM3/6/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I was only an aspiring dictator. I was never a real dictator."
-- Augusto Pinochet
ilbe...@gmail.com
Mar 6, 2012, 2:04:21 PM3/6/12
to
On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <89be2010-8c47-4085-8844-75afedd17...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
>
> > In article
> > BroilJAB<DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> “Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
What is wrong with atheism believing that " Nothing created something
> “Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
as complex and razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth
can be here so we can be here...from nothing and by nothing all
without a shred of purpose or meaning ' ? Afterall, given enough
time like 4.5 billion years, an accidental big explosion can make
planets, stars, and suns and a piece of pond scum graduating to a
human brain which modern scientists cant begin to duplicate . So,
atheism makes really good sense doesnt it ?! (not) .
Devils Advocaat
Mar 6, 2012, 3:08:52 PM3/6/12
to
Why look outside yourself?
Create your own meaning.
Create your own purpose.
Then your life will be of greater value.
Far more than it is now.
Barry OGrady
Mar 6, 2012, 3:29:05 PM3/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:04:21 -0800 (PST), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What is wrong with atheism believing that " Nothing created something
>as complex and razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth
>can be here so we can be here...from nothing and by nothing all
>without a shred of purpose or meaning ' ? Afterall, given enough
>time like 4.5 billion years, an accidental big explosion can make
>planets, stars, and suns and a piece of pond scum graduating to a
>human brain which modern scientists cant begin to duplicate . So,
>atheism makes really good sense doesnt it ?! (not) .
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). It doesn't include
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What is wrong with atheism believing that " Nothing created something
>as complex and razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth
>can be here so we can be here...from nothing and by nothing all
>without a shred of purpose or meaning ' ? Afterall, given enough
>time like 4.5 billion years, an accidental big explosion can make
>planets, stars, and suns and a piece of pond scum graduating to a
>human brain which modern scientists cant begin to duplicate . So,
>atheism makes really good sense doesnt it ?! (not) .
any particular belief in origins. Creationists belief a magic creator
from nowhere created everything from nothing yet is completely
undetectable. Nobody know where everything came from.
felix_unger
Mar 6, 2012, 5:51:45 PM3/6/12
to
>
> Theo
felix_unger
Mar 6, 2012, 5:57:16 PM3/6/12
to
On 07-March-2012 6:04 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <89be2010-8c47-4085-8844-75afedd17...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> BroilJAB<DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>>> They knowingly choose Hell.
>>> Since atheists
>> not only atheists
>>
>>> have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
>>> anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should consider
>> it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
>> implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
>> contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable assumptions or
>> evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no necessity, and
>> certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
>>
> On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <89be2010-8c47-4085-8844-75afedd17...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> BroilJAB<DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>>> They knowingly choose Hell.
>>> Since atheists
>> not only atheists
>>
>>> have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
>>> anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should consider
>> it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
>> implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
>> contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable assumptions or
>> evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no necessity, and
>> certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
>>
> What is wrong with atheism believing that "Nothing created something
> as complex and razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth
> can be here so we can be here...from nothing and by nothing all
> without a shred of purpose or meaning ' ? Afterall, given enough
> time like 4.5 billion years, an accidental big explosion can make
> planets, stars, and suns and a piece of pond scum graduating to a
> human brain which modern scientists cant begin to duplicate . So,
> atheism makes really good sense doesnt it ?! (not) .
the post was about the existence of hell, not atheism. a person can
> as complex and razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth
> can be here so we can be here...from nothing and by nothing all
> without a shred of purpose or meaning ' ? Afterall, given enough
> time like 4.5 billion years, an accidental big explosion can make
> planets, stars, and suns and a piece of pond scum graduating to a
> human brain which modern scientists cant begin to duplicate . So,
> atheism makes really good sense doesnt it ?! (not) .
believe in a creator God without believing in heaven or hell or even an
afterlife.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
“It doesn't matter [who the leader is] the Labor Party is rotten, the policies stink, the lies insufferable, and the waste intolerable. The Muppets could do a better job!”
“All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
Vurgil
Mar 6, 2012, 6:57:01 PM3/6/12
to
In article
<89bf39a0-04c3-41c0...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Sane people do not fell compelled to believe things for which there is
absolutely no objective physical evidence in support.
<89bf39a0-04c3-41c0...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
absolutely no objective physical evidence in support.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 6, 2012, 7:57:54 PM3/6/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Fidel Castro
felix_unger
Mar 6, 2012, 8:44:16 PM3/6/12
to
On 07-March-2012 11:57 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
silly twit
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 6, 2012, 8:51:48 PM3/6/12
to
your ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"God is dead."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
felix_unger
Mar 6, 2012, 9:19:43 PM3/6/12
to
On 07-March-2012 12:51 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
you're comment needed no response. it was just talk for the sake of talking.
Barry OGrady
Mar 7, 2012, 5:42:37 AM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:
>On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>
>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
>>> about it.
>> So you're an atheist then?
>
>no. there's no value in it
The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>> Theo
>>
>
>
>--
>rgds,
>
>Pete
wrote:
>On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>
>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
>>> about it.
>> So you're an atheist then?
>
>no. there's no value in it
>> Theo
>>
>
>
>--
>rgds,
>
>Pete
felix_unger
Mar 7, 2012, 8:09:58 AM3/7/12
to
On 07-March-2012 9:42 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>
>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
>>>> about it.
>>> So you're an atheist then?
>> no. there's no value in it
> The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
no. my integrity is intact now.
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>
>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
>>>> about it.
>>> So you're an atheist then?
>> no. there's no value in it
> The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>
> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
> God is a spirit. 0% proof!
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 8, 2012, 1:14:18 AM3/8/12
to
unable to refute my response.
Your insult also reveals that you may be frustrated by your apparent
inability to refute my response.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Those most in need of education are the most fearful of its effects."
-- Dr. Don Martin
Yap
Mar 8, 2012, 2:23:22 AM3/8/12
to
to think or question.
Yap
Mar 8, 2012, 2:29:22 AM3/8/12
to
On Mar 7, 9:09 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 07-March-2012 9:42 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> >>> "felix_unger" wrote
>
> >>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> >>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
> >>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
> >>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> >>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> >>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
> >>>> about it.
> >>> So you're an atheist then?
> >> no. there's no value in it
> > The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>
> no. my integrity is intact now.
Atheism has integrity as its core value.\
> On 07-March-2012 9:42 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> >>> "felix_unger" wrote
>
> >>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> >>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
> >>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
> >>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> >>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> >>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
> >>>> about it.
> >>> So you're an atheist then?
> >> no. there's no value in it
> > The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>
> no. my integrity is intact now.
And this is also why there are so many Christian priest molesters
since religious integrity/value is bankrupt.
>
>
>
> > =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
> > God is a spirit. 0% proof!
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> “If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
>
> "Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
>
> “It doesn't matter [who the leader is] the Labor Party is rotten, the policies stink, the lies insufferable, and the waste intolerable. The Muppets could do a better job!”
>
> “All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”
>
> "If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
>
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>
> "Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
>
felix_unger
Mar 8, 2012, 4:06:57 AM3/8/12
to
On 08-March-2012 5:14 PM, Findem Nobrain, the non-existent atheist
goddess babbled:
You've got tickets on yourself, you know that?
there was nothing to refute. you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out
of molehills. you need to get a life!
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”
“Atheists are wankers. They cling desperately to only one possibility and deny all others. They have faith in that for which there is no evidence, nor ever can be, and ridicule those who have faith in those things for which there is evidence”
“Snip, run and Lie ... the atheist Trinity”
The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
“Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let alone a great and enduring civilisation”
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
“Atheists just piss on the beliefs of others, so why would anyone cast pearls before atheist swine?”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
goddess babbled:
there was nothing to refute. you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out
of molehills. you need to get a life!
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”
“Atheists are wankers. They cling desperately to only one possibility and deny all others. They have faith in that for which there is no evidence, nor ever can be, and ridicule those who have faith in those things for which there is evidence”
“Snip, run and Lie ... the atheist Trinity”
The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
“Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let alone a great and enduring civilisation”
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
“Atheists just piss on the beliefs of others, so why would anyone cast pearls before atheist swine?”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
Message has been deleted
Theo Bekkers
Mar 8, 2012, 6:35:07 AM3/8/12
to
"dolf" wrote using 1639 lines
<1637 lines deleted
- dolf
- www.grapple369
Dolf does not choose sanity.
Theo
<1637 lines deleted
- dolf
- www.grapple369
Dolf does not choose sanity.
Theo
Theo Bekkers
Mar 8, 2012, 7:17:16 AM3/8/12
to
"felix_unger" wrote
Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
:-)
Theo
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "felix_unger" wrote
>
>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>> something
>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>> disputed
>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>> assertions
>>> about it.
>> So you're an atheist then?
> no. there's no value in it
You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>> "felix_unger" wrote
>
>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>> something
>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>> disputed
>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>> assertions
>>> about it.
>> So you're an atheist then?
> no. there's no value in it
Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
:-)
Theo
felix_unger
Mar 8, 2012, 7:32:33 AM3/8/12
to
On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "felix_unger" wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>>> something
>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>>> disputed
>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>>> assertions
>>>> about it.
>>> So you're an atheist then?
>> no. there's no value in it
> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
> "felix_unger" wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>>> something
>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>>> disputed
>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>>> assertions
>>>> about it.
>>> So you're an atheist then?
>> no. there's no value in it
> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me the
honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
>
> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
> :-)
evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the sense
in that!? and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism.
that's a croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is
absolutely NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the
existence of a deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this
'sitting on the fence' crap is a croc as well!
>
> Theo
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”
“Snip, run and Lie ... the atheist Trinity”
The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
“Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let alone a great and enduring civilisation”
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
“Atheists just piss on the beliefs of others, so why would anyone cast pearls before atheist swine?”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
"I argue for TRUTH against error, wherever it is found. Those not interested in HONEST rational discussion and debate should just bugger off!"
The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
“Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let alone a great and enduring civilisation”
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
“Atheists just piss on the beliefs of others, so why would anyone cast pearls before atheist swine?”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 8, 2012, 12:31:29 PM3/8/12
to
On 2012-Mar-07 23:29, Yap wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:09 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 07-March-2012 9:42 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>
>>>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
>>>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
>>>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>> So you're an atheist then?
>>>> no. there's no value in it
>>> The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>>
>> no. my integrity is intact now.
>
> Atheism has integrity as its core value.\
Although integrity is actually an implicit core value of atheism,
> On Mar 7, 9:09 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 07-March-2012 9:42 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>
>>>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
>>>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
>>>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>> So you're an atheist then?
>>>> no. there's no value in it
>>> The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>>
>> no. my integrity is intact now.
>
> Atheism has integrity as its core value.\
overall I do agree that integrity often is the all-encompassing core
value (particularly in the area of skepticism), it's also important to
note that there's a personal characteristic aspect to this that cannot
be ignored wherein even hardened criminals can also be atheists.
> And this is also why there are so many Christian priest molesters
> since religious integrity/value is bankrupt.
suspect is one of the main contributors to the slow but steady decline
in religion (most notably Catholicism and Christianity).
The problem for churches is that they emphasize the idea that they can
be trusted, which gains loyalty among their followers, and then they
betray that trust by causing harm to those who are most vulnerable
(typically children) which, in turn, can completely destroy the loyalty
from those who are willing to "wake up from the great dream of fallacy."
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Any man may easily do harm, but not every man can do good to another."
-- Plato of Athens
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 8, 2012, 1:53:16 PM3/8/12
to
On 2012-Mar-08 04:32, felix_unger wrote:
> On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>>>> something
>>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>>>> disputed
>>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>>>> assertions
>>>>> about it.
>>>> So you're an atheist then?
>>> no. there's no value in it
>> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
>
> no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
> problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me the
> honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
Atheism cannot qualify as a position because it is absent of belief in
> On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>>>> something
>>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>>>> disputed
>>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>>>> assertions
>>>>> about it.
>>>> So you're an atheist then?
>>> no. there's no value in it
>> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
>
> no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
> problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me the
> honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
deities and supernatural agents. Perhaps you meant anti-theism?
The problem with classifying agnosticism as an honest position is that
not all agnostics are honest (and in the spirit of impartiality I would
also contend that not all theists or atheists are honest) because
although the reason for someone's belief may or may not be honest, and
because they could be misrepresenting whether they believe, the belief
itself is independent from the reason or the motivation for the belief.
>> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
>>
>
> Atheists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
> evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the sense
> in that!? and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism.
Actually, it's atheism that has no evidence because it's not needed,
> evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the sense
> in that!? and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism.
unlike theism that is dependent on claims of the existence of deities
and/or supernatural agents which, so far, haven't been confirmed with
credible evidence. The primary reason atheists are skeptical of these
claims is because the religious right-wing-nuts keep waving them around
and trying to ram them down our throats as if we need to be force-fed,
and so these responses are mostly a matter of self-defence -- if nobody
was proselytizing, there would be no need to be protective against it.
> that's a croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is
indicate a high degree of frustration on your part.
You do not need to say it at all. That fact that you have to keep
repeating it should be a clear indication to you that continued attempts
will likely be a wasted effort on your part -- why not focus on
something more meaningful or productive instead? Even here in the
alt.atheism newsgroup many other topics of discourse occur and sometimes
develop in to fascinating, philosophical, and useful insight due to the
wide variety of perspectives from the high number of constructive
contributors.
> absolutely NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the
> existence of a deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this
religions, yet they routinely present fallacious claims about the
existence of deities and/or supernatural agents without credible
evidence to support them. Many people go along with this for reasons
that are usually their own (and hopefully informed), but then there are
many more who disagree with the fallacies, choose not to believe, or
simply lack interest in even considering the possibility of belief in
the first place -- this is a choice that depends on freedom, a natural
right, which deserves respect for the sake of free thinking.
For example, it matters not to me what you choose to believe in the
context of your personal life, but if you present your ideas here in
alt.atheism then they will likely be debated. One of the purposes of
this alt.atheism newsgroup is to develop meaningful discourse of
ideologies, theologies, philosophies, etc., and in particular when
anyone presents an anti-atheistic idea it will almost certainly be
challenged or even ripped to shreds by one of our [metaphorical] cats,
but if this doesn't work for you don't post your challenges here.
> 'sitting on the fence' crap is a croc as well!
me that their position is correct. They do ask questions if the subject
comes up, naturally, but they appear to be quite content in their
position which certainly seems far more reasonable than what many
religious extremists routinely attempt to impose on others.
What is the problem you have with agnosticism? Do have the same problem
with theologies that differ greatly from your own?
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Plato of Athens
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 8, 2012, 1:55:49 PM3/8/12
to
posted appears to be a violation of privacy by a lawyer. At any rate,
it always appears to be unrelated to whatever topic is at hand.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Plato of Athens
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 8, 2012, 2:05:34 PM3/8/12
to
unable to refute my response, and partly because your nonsensical
question doesn't qualify as an argument.
> there was nothing to refute.
applicable to messages posted here in the alt.atheism newsgroup?
> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
homosexuality.
PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
> you need to get a life!
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The most virtuous are those who content themselves with being virtuous
without seeking to appear so."
-- Plato of Athens
ed wolf
Mar 8, 2012, 3:44:44 PM3/8/12
to
Am Dienstag, 6. März 2012 21:08:52 UTC+1 schrieb Devils Advocaat:
>
> You need purpose and meaning in your life?
>
> Why look outside yourself?
>
> Create your own meaning.
>
> Create your own purpose.
>
> Then your life will be of greater value.
>
> Far more than it is now.
And if you have trouble finding purpose and
>
> You need purpose and meaning in your life?
>
> Why look outside yourself?
>
> Create your own meaning.
>
> Create your own purpose.
>
> Then your life will be of greater value.
>
> Far more than it is now.
meaning, because you are focused on death,
eternity, or the absolute:
Look at the animal kingdom, each animal has
a purpose in it that is clearly described in
its body. Its the same with humans: Long
legs for getting around, nimble hands to do
just about anything, sharp senses,rather big
sexual organs,a versatile digestive system
and a huge brain.
All want to be used, none excluded. For me,
that's as close as I get to meaning and purpose.
regards
ed wolf
felix_unger
Mar 8, 2012, 4:10:51 PM3/8/12
to
On 09-March-2012 6:05 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
of course.
>
>> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>
> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
> homosexuality.
>
> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
I feel sorry for you, I really do. if you functioned like a person
rather than a computer or robot or machine of some kind, you would have
a better life.
>
> > you need to get a life!
>
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
>
a babbling non-existent one
>
>> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>
> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
> homosexuality.
>
> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
rather than a computer or robot or machine of some kind, you would have
a better life.
>
> > you need to get a life!
>
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
>
felix_unger
Mar 8, 2012, 4:59:53 PM3/8/12
to
On 09-March-2012 5:53 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> because it is absent of belief in deities and supernatural agents.
> Perhaps you meant anti-theism?
>
> The problem with classifying agnosticism as an honest position is that
> not all agnostics are honest
what problem? I never said all agnostics were honest. I spoke about
agnosticism, not agnostic persons. learn to read before you babble
> (and in the spirit of impartiality I would also contend that not all
> theists or atheists are honest)
you don't say
> because although the reason for someone's belief may or may not be
> honest, and because they could be misrepresenting whether they
> believe, the belief itself is independent from the reason or the
> motivation for the belief.
>
> >> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
> >>
> >
> > Atheists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
> > evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the sense
> > in that!? and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism.
>
> Actually, it's atheism that has no evidence
that's what I said! learn to read before you babble.
> because it's not needed, unlike theism that is dependent on claims of
> the existence of deities and/or supernatural agents
you don't say. do you try to teach your granny to suck eggs?
> which, so far, haven't been confirmed with credible evidence. The
> primary reason atheists are skeptical of these claims is because the
> religious right-wing-nuts keep waving them around and trying to ram
> them down our throats as if we need to be force-fed, and so these
> responses are mostly a matter of self-defence -- if nobody was
> proselytizing, there would be no need to be protective against it.
>
> > that's a croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is
>
> Your ad hominem
you don't seem to understand the meaning of the term
> attack doesn't help your position, and this one seems to indicate a
> high degree of frustration on your part.
I wasn't talking to you birdbrain.
>
> You do not need to say it at all. That fact that you have to keep
> repeating it should be a clear indication
that ppl just don't get the message
> to you that continued attempts will likely be a wasted effort on your
> part
possibly
> -- why not focus on something more meaningful or productive instead?
why don't you stop babbling
> Even here in the alt.atheism newsgroup many other topics of
> discourse occur and sometimes develop in to fascinating,
> philosophical, and useful insight due to the wide variety of
> perspectives from the high number of constructive contributors.
and yet you find it necessary to talk to me here in alt.agnosticism
>
> > absolutely NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the
> > existence of a deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this
>
> You're right, there is no obligation, and that applies equally to
> religions, yet they routinely present fallacious claims about the
> existence of deities and/or supernatural agents
you can't know they're fallacious
> without credible evidence to support them.
the credibility of any evidence is a matter of evaluation, not opinion.
what about testimonial evidence, current or historical?
> Many people go along with this for reasons that are usually their
> own (and hopefully informed), but then there are many more who
> disagree with the fallacies, choose not to believe, or simply lack
> interest in even considering the possibility of belief in the first
> place -- this is a choice that depends on freedom, a natural right,
> which deserves respect for the sake of free thinking.
did they consult you when writing the USA constitution ?
>
> For example, it matters not to me what you choose to believe in the
> context of your personal life, but if you present your ideas here in
> alt.atheism then they will likely be debated.
no problem
> One of the purposes of this alt.atheism newsgroup is to develop
> meaningful discourse of ideologies, theologies, philosophies, etc.,
yeh, like telling ppl to F off, or trying to belittle them or their beliefs
> and in particular when anyone presents an anti-atheistic idea it will
> almost certainly be challenged or even ripped to shreds
lol! you are just so full of yourself
> by one of our [metaphorical] cats, but if this doesn't work for you
> don't post your challenges here.
what challenge? and I simply hit reply. and if I want your opinion I'll
ask for it
>
> > 'sitting on the fence' crap is a croc as well!
>
> Of all the agnostics I've encountered, none have ever tried to
> convince me that their position is correct.
I wasn't talking to you, birdbrain. you've got tickets on yourself. 'of
all the atheists I've encountered', none have ever babbled so much
> They do ask questions if the subject comes up, naturally, but they
> appear to be quite content in their position which certainly seems far
> more reasonable than what many religious extremists routinely attempt
> to impose on others.
>
> What is the problem you have with agnosticism?
I have no problem with it. why do you suppose that I have?
> Do have the same problem with theologies that differ greatly from
> your own?
when did you stop abusing your child? and it's not a theology.
you're starting to come across as a somewhat immature non-existent
being. how old are you 20, 30 ? oh, I forgot.. you don't exist. :(
goddess wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-08 04:32, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>>>>> disputed
>>>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>>>>> assertions
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>> So you're an atheist then?
>>>> no. there's no value in it
>>> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>>> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
>>
>> no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
>> problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me the
>> honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
>
> Atheism cannot qualify as a position
oh yes it does
> On 2012-Mar-08 04:32, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
>>>>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
>>>>>> disputed
>>>>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
>>>>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
>>>>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
>>>>>> assertions
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>> So you're an atheist then?
>>>> no. there's no value in it
>>> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>>> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
>>
>> no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
>> problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me the
>> honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
>
> Atheism cannot qualify as a position
> because it is absent of belief in deities and supernatural agents.
> Perhaps you meant anti-theism?
>
> The problem with classifying agnosticism as an honest position is that
> not all agnostics are honest
agnosticism, not agnostic persons. learn to read before you babble
> (and in the spirit of impartiality I would also contend that not all
> theists or atheists are honest)
> because although the reason for someone's belief may or may not be
> honest, and because they could be misrepresenting whether they
> believe, the belief itself is independent from the reason or the
> motivation for the belief.
>
> >> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
> >>
> >
> > Atheists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
> > evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the sense
> > in that!? and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism.
>
> Actually, it's atheism that has no evidence
> because it's not needed, unlike theism that is dependent on claims of
> the existence of deities and/or supernatural agents
> which, so far, haven't been confirmed with credible evidence. The
> primary reason atheists are skeptical of these claims is because the
> religious right-wing-nuts keep waving them around and trying to ram
> them down our throats as if we need to be force-fed, and so these
> responses are mostly a matter of self-defence -- if nobody was
> proselytizing, there would be no need to be protective against it.
>
> > that's a croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is
>
> Your ad hominem
> attack doesn't help your position, and this one seems to indicate a
> high degree of frustration on your part.
>
> You do not need to say it at all. That fact that you have to keep
> repeating it should be a clear indication
> to you that continued attempts will likely be a wasted effort on your
> part
> -- why not focus on something more meaningful or productive instead?
> Even here in the alt.atheism newsgroup many other topics of
> discourse occur and sometimes develop in to fascinating,
> philosophical, and useful insight due to the wide variety of
> perspectives from the high number of constructive contributors.
>
> > absolutely NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the
> > existence of a deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this
>
> You're right, there is no obligation, and that applies equally to
> religions, yet they routinely present fallacious claims about the
> existence of deities and/or supernatural agents
> without credible evidence to support them.
what about testimonial evidence, current or historical?
> Many people go along with this for reasons that are usually their
> own (and hopefully informed), but then there are many more who
> disagree with the fallacies, choose not to believe, or simply lack
> interest in even considering the possibility of belief in the first
> place -- this is a choice that depends on freedom, a natural right,
> which deserves respect for the sake of free thinking.
>
> For example, it matters not to me what you choose to believe in the
> context of your personal life, but if you present your ideas here in
> alt.atheism then they will likely be debated.
> One of the purposes of this alt.atheism newsgroup is to develop
> meaningful discourse of ideologies, theologies, philosophies, etc.,
> and in particular when anyone presents an anti-atheistic idea it will
> almost certainly be challenged or even ripped to shreds
> by one of our [metaphorical] cats, but if this doesn't work for you
> don't post your challenges here.
ask for it
>
> > 'sitting on the fence' crap is a croc as well!
>
> Of all the agnostics I've encountered, none have ever tried to
> convince me that their position is correct.
all the atheists I've encountered', none have ever babbled so much
> They do ask questions if the subject comes up, naturally, but they
> appear to be quite content in their position which certainly seems far
> more reasonable than what many religious extremists routinely attempt
> to impose on others.
>
> What is the problem you have with agnosticism?
> Do have the same problem with theologies that differ greatly from
> your own?
you're starting to come across as a somewhat immature non-existent
being. how old are you 20, 30 ? oh, I forgot.. you don't exist. :(
Mike Painter
Mar 8, 2012, 5:55:59 PM3/8/12
to
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>
> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
> homosexuality.
>
> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>
> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
> homosexuality.
>
> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
Smiler
Mar 8, 2012, 6:35:07 PM3/8/12
to
moles are found...
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 8, 2012, 6:49:03 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:35:07 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>
>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>
>I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
>moles are found...
The Southlanders, "I Am A Mole And I Live In A Hole" (1958)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdwLp0co6C0
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>
>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>
>I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
>moles are found...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdwLp0co6C0
Alex W.
Mar 8, 2012, 7:30:26 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:35:07 +0000, Smiler wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> >> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>>>
>>> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
>>> homosexuality.
>>>
>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>
>>
>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>
> I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
> moles are found...
Their molehills:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> >> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>>>
>>> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
>>> homosexuality.
>>>
>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>
>>
>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>
> I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
> moles are found...
http://wallpaperstock.net/three-pyramids_wallpapers_12277_1280x960_1.html
dolf
Mar 8, 2012, 8:08:59 PM3/8/12
to theo...@bigpond.com.au
dolf: “Do you have anything further to say (even given such implausible
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
over your defamatory and untruthful characterizations of me on the
Internet and such lawful recourse by me will also be taken over your
persecution as actions over my ANZAC day protest of 25 April 2006.
These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to pursue
my lawful rights.
Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any remaining
opportunity for you and your family in this country.”
- dolf
- www.grapple369.com
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
over your defamatory and untruthful characterizations of me on the
Internet and such lawful recourse by me will also be taken over your
persecution as actions over my ANZAC day protest of 25 April 2006.
These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to pursue
my lawful rights.
Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any remaining
opportunity for you and your family in this country.”
- dolf
- www.grapple369.com
dolf
Mar 8, 2012, 8:26:48 PM3/8/12
to
IN CASE THERE ARE ANY DOUBTS--THIS INJURY DIRECTED TOWARDS ME IS
PERMANENT AND I WILL TAKE FULL RETRIBUTION, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE BY LAW
AGAINST THOSE PERSONS INCLUDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF VICTORIA:
[They have also] suggested that “religious people” have a constitutional
right to discriminate against gay people, and for good measure, [they no
doubt] will annul any same sex marriages already standing if [any of
them are ever] elected [to office]. This [also would] seem to sit well
with [some Catholic] Cardinal’s assertion that same-sex unions are
“madness” and a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human
right”.
What does that mean? If you are gay you relinquish your human rights and
become some sort of second class citizen, to be openly discriminated
against? I’m sorry, this is not about religion, this is bigotry of the
oldest kind, and it comes from fear.
It seems to me that the [Catholic] Cardinal and the politician, despite
their faith do not believe that we are all created equal, but that they
are in fact quite a bit more equal than other sectors of society.
Narcissistic, but also insecure, they are unable to tolerate difference,
and see it as a threat, which cannot therefore be tolerated.
There is also a strong thread of denial in both these men; [Some
Catholic] Cardinal described the idea of same sex marriage as an attempt
to “redefine reality”, “at the behest of a small minority of the
population”. Well, the reality is that homosexuality exists, has done
for centuries and will continue to do so. I think that the biggest
denial of all is the refusal to believe that a family has to have a man
and a woman at its head to be acceptable.” [On the Couch: The bigotry of
Rick Santorum and Catholic Church , By Johanna Sartori, 7 March 2012]
Nous: #1
Time: 23:05 hrs
Date: 2012.3.7
Torah: #60 #10 #9 %81 = #79
Dao: To Guide with Names, Reason's Realisation
Tetra: #24 - Joy
I-Ching: H58 - Joy
Latin: Laetabundus {God the hope of all creatures} Alt: Hacheshyah
{Silence of God} {
1. HELPS & PROTECTS AGAINST ADVERSITY AND CALAMITY
2. MAGNANIMITY & NOBILITY
3. LOVERS OF TRUTH
4. Chontachre
}
Enosh {Husband, (certain, mortal) man; sick; despaired of; forgetful}
-- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:9,col:8
Devil’s Advocaat (manky...@gmail.com): “You need purpose and meaning
Yap (hhya...@gmail.com): “Trouble is, I2be idiot doesn't know how,
having been indoctrinated not to think or question.”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Dolf does not choose sanity.”
dolf: “I intend to the pursue legal action against you.”
Fidem Turbare (the non-existent atheist goddess): “I wonder if there's
dolf: “Do you have anything further to say (even given such implausible
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
over your defamatory and untruthful characterisations of me on the
These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to pursue
my lawful rights.
Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any remaining
opportunity for you and your family in this country.”
In this regard, as my letter to him of 19 January 2012, conveys: I was
in fact affronted by the lack of dignity afforded to me by a young and
new pathologist assistant who in treating me as less than human because
he felt threatened by my personality as intrinsic character of being
which I exuded--demanded the presence of a third party whilst blood
samples were taken. I objected to this at the time by exclaiming: "Get
this fascist dog away from me" and then refused to pay my bill in
relation to the medical attendance immediately earlier--for what I
thought was a closure of the matter.
That I can properly sustain such a comment as ardent and informed view
held by me and I do not regret it. And there is without any semblance of
doubt, a continuing festering antagonism as incompatibility between
myself and their view of religious identity and gay/lesbian idealism, of
gay identity and fundamentally what it means to be Australian--in part
this to their lack of a proper recognition of essential principles of
state or religious belief and any appreciation as sense of
accomplishment regarding individual liberty which I have obtained as a
victory and an intellectual property.
The source of this antagonism can be more appropriately defined as a
racialism associated with my Dutch identity and the confrontation which
disclosure as discussion over the implications of my metempirical
research brings to some persons. Not even Coles Supermarket can price
Dutch grocery items correctly--To ask now 3 times I consider to be
insolent and told them so today 8 March 2012.
For example, in conveying my considerations for the preparation of this
document in anticipation of this our meeting--I had found that they had
entered into such a state of fear which rendered them incapable of
speech. In confirming this later that person said to me: "Sorry I have
been distant over the last 24 hours. Just started anti-depressants and
trying to manage side effects. Have some major person issues I am trying
to sort through. At times I go into my cave as an escape driven by fear.
Give me time please."
This characteristic of an unsettled mind and an anxiousness of being
over my activities as intellectual pursuit also manifested in another
female (I think Irish) at this same Holdsworthy House Pathology to whom
I had earlier disclosed aspects of metaphysical research--the only way
for her to deal with the reality of one day being accountable to Dutch
sensibilities was to be isolationistic, contemptible and diminutive of
it as less than wholesome. It attempts by this to avoid the label of
unbridled racism by characterising the brilliance of my life work and
the vitality of speech as unsoundness of mind.
On the basis of this racist prejudice as loathsome conduct, this person
then engaged in avoidance of me--which by necessity of her own depravity
as appalling character of being, then requires some justifying
verbalisation as an unfounded mischaracterisation made of me towards her
colleagues. Which is then given concordance and soon accepted as fact,
simply by the requirement for her colleagues to act in her stead.
Does your request for me to attend here today relate in any way to the
event of 16 February 2012 as my desire to contest unresolved issues with
Dr Mark Bloch of Holdsworthy House, 32a Oxford Street, Darlinghurst
before pursuing a legal action--the value of such an early contest over
unresolved issues, is that this tactic is a lawful recourse and has the
capacity to reduce the otherwise high costs associated with pursuing
justifiable and sustainable claims made against recalcitrant parties
whose burdensome and loathsome conduct which possesses no intrinsic
merit, then involves additional cost. But if one persists, in having
exhausted all opportunities by obtaining an adequate explanation, the
subsequent cost of obtaining the legal resources for a determination as
judgment in the matter, is then likely to be born by the other party.
Are you or anyone else now suggesting or continuing to assert that my
conduct was aggressive and threatening of Dr Mark Bloch in any way?
I had made it abundantly clear to Dr Mark Bloch that my conduct was
intentioned to contest of matters for which a legal recourse was being
pursued and was being made in regard to his continued failure to respond
to my letters to him of 10 and 19 January 2012 over an obstruction by
him, which denied me a fair and equitable judicial process as tribunal
hearings, and manifestly is reliant on a hysteria as distortions of my
statements and which attempt to coerce the inconsequential into the
dramatic--and then this is transformed into action.
My outrage on the first occasion I was subject to such a scurrilous
approach to involuntary admission as perverse contrary conduct is that
the justification for such action, is only reliant on their observations
made of my initial reaction to being subjected to a brutal, unrestrained
and unaccountable incursion into my tranquility by malformed and
malicious characterisation of my conduct.
Calmness is constructive of good. Agitation is destructive of good. I
should not rush into action. I should first "be still and know that He
is God." Then I should act only as God directs me through my conscience.
Only trust, perfect trust in God, can keep me calm when all around me
are agitated. Calmness is trust in action. I should seek all things that
can help me to cultivate calmness. To attain material things, the world
learns to attain speed. To attain spiritual things, I have to learn to
attain a state of calm.
PERMANENT AND I WILL TAKE FULL RETRIBUTION, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE BY LAW
AGAINST THOSE PERSONS INCLUDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF VICTORIA:
[They have also] suggested that “religious people” have a constitutional
right to discriminate against gay people, and for good measure, [they no
doubt] will annul any same sex marriages already standing if [any of
them are ever] elected [to office]. This [also would] seem to sit well
with [some Catholic] Cardinal’s assertion that same-sex unions are
“madness” and a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human
right”.
What does that mean? If you are gay you relinquish your human rights and
become some sort of second class citizen, to be openly discriminated
against? I’m sorry, this is not about religion, this is bigotry of the
oldest kind, and it comes from fear.
It seems to me that the [Catholic] Cardinal and the politician, despite
their faith do not believe that we are all created equal, but that they
are in fact quite a bit more equal than other sectors of society.
Narcissistic, but also insecure, they are unable to tolerate difference,
and see it as a threat, which cannot therefore be tolerated.
There is also a strong thread of denial in both these men; [Some
Catholic] Cardinal described the idea of same sex marriage as an attempt
to “redefine reality”, “at the behest of a small minority of the
population”. Well, the reality is that homosexuality exists, has done
for centuries and will continue to do so. I think that the biggest
denial of all is the refusal to believe that a family has to have a man
and a woman at its head to be acceptable.” [On the Couch: The bigotry of
Rick Santorum and Catholic Church , By Johanna Sartori, 7 March 2012]
Nous: #1
Time: 23:05 hrs
Date: 2012.3.7
Torah: #60 #10 #9 %81 = #79
Dao: To Guide with Names, Reason's Realisation
Tetra: #24 - Joy
I-Ching: H58 - Joy
Latin: Laetabundus {God the hope of all creatures} Alt: Hacheshyah
{Silence of God} {
1. HELPS & PROTECTS AGAINST ADVERSITY AND CALAMITY
2. MAGNANIMITY & NOBILITY
3. LOVERS OF TRUTH
4. Chontachre
}
Enosh {Husband, (certain, mortal) man; sick; despaired of; forgetful}
-- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:9,col:8
On 9/03/12 6:05 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
IlBeBauck (ilbe...@gmail.com): “Atheists Choose Sanity: What is wrong
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
with atheism believing that: ‘Nothing created something as complex and
razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth can be here so we
can be here...from nothing and by nothing all without a shred of purpose
or meaning'? After all, given enough time like 4.5 billion years, an
razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth can be here so we
can be here...from nothing and by nothing all without a shred of purpose
accidental big explosion can make planets, stars, and suns and a piece
of pond scum graduating to a human brain which modern scientists can’t
begin to duplicate. So, atheism makes really good sense doesn’t it? (not!).”
of pond scum graduating to a human brain which modern scientists can’t
Devil’s Advocaat (manky...@gmail.com): “You need purpose and meaning
in your life?
Why look outside yourself?
Create your own meaning.
Create your own purpose.
Then your life will be of greater value.
Far more than it is now.”
Why look outside yourself?
Create your own meaning.
Create your own purpose.
Then your life will be of greater value.
Yap (hhya...@gmail.com): “Trouble is, I2be idiot doesn't know how,
having been indoctrinated not to think or question.”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Dolf does not choose sanity.”
dolf: “I intend to the pursue legal action against you.”
Fidem Turbare (the non-existent atheist goddess): “I wonder if there's
some plagiarism involved. Sometimes the content posted appears to be a
violation of privacy by a lawyer. At any rate, it always appears to be
unrelated to whatever topic is at hand.”
violation of privacy by a lawyer. At any rate, it always appears to be
dolf: “Do you have anything further to say (even given such implausible
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
Internet and such lawful recourse by me will also be taken over your
persecution as actions regarding my ANZAC day protest of 25 April 2006.
These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to pursue
my lawful rights.
Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any remaining
opportunity for you and your family in this country.”
in fact affronted by the lack of dignity afforded to me by a young and
new pathologist assistant who in treating me as less than human because
he felt threatened by my personality as intrinsic character of being
which I exuded--demanded the presence of a third party whilst blood
samples were taken. I objected to this at the time by exclaiming: "Get
this fascist dog away from me" and then refused to pay my bill in
relation to the medical attendance immediately earlier--for what I
thought was a closure of the matter.
That I can properly sustain such a comment as ardent and informed view
held by me and I do not regret it. And there is without any semblance of
doubt, a continuing festering antagonism as incompatibility between
myself and their view of religious identity and gay/lesbian idealism, of
gay identity and fundamentally what it means to be Australian--in part
this to their lack of a proper recognition of essential principles of
state or religious belief and any appreciation as sense of
accomplishment regarding individual liberty which I have obtained as a
victory and an intellectual property.
The source of this antagonism can be more appropriately defined as a
racialism associated with my Dutch identity and the confrontation which
disclosure as discussion over the implications of my metempirical
research brings to some persons. Not even Coles Supermarket can price
Dutch grocery items correctly--To ask now 3 times I consider to be
insolent and told them so today 8 March 2012.
For example, in conveying my considerations for the preparation of this
document in anticipation of this our meeting--I had found that they had
entered into such a state of fear which rendered them incapable of
speech. In confirming this later that person said to me: "Sorry I have
been distant over the last 24 hours. Just started anti-depressants and
trying to manage side effects. Have some major person issues I am trying
to sort through. At times I go into my cave as an escape driven by fear.
Give me time please."
This characteristic of an unsettled mind and an anxiousness of being
over my activities as intellectual pursuit also manifested in another
female (I think Irish) at this same Holdsworthy House Pathology to whom
I had earlier disclosed aspects of metaphysical research--the only way
for her to deal with the reality of one day being accountable to Dutch
sensibilities was to be isolationistic, contemptible and diminutive of
it as less than wholesome. It attempts by this to avoid the label of
unbridled racism by characterising the brilliance of my life work and
the vitality of speech as unsoundness of mind.
On the basis of this racist prejudice as loathsome conduct, this person
then engaged in avoidance of me--which by necessity of her own depravity
as appalling character of being, then requires some justifying
verbalisation as an unfounded mischaracterisation made of me towards her
colleagues. Which is then given concordance and soon accepted as fact,
simply by the requirement for her colleagues to act in her stead.
Does your request for me to attend here today relate in any way to the
event of 16 February 2012 as my desire to contest unresolved issues with
Dr Mark Bloch of Holdsworthy House, 32a Oxford Street, Darlinghurst
before pursuing a legal action--the value of such an early contest over
unresolved issues, is that this tactic is a lawful recourse and has the
capacity to reduce the otherwise high costs associated with pursuing
justifiable and sustainable claims made against recalcitrant parties
whose burdensome and loathsome conduct which possesses no intrinsic
merit, then involves additional cost. But if one persists, in having
exhausted all opportunities by obtaining an adequate explanation, the
subsequent cost of obtaining the legal resources for a determination as
judgment in the matter, is then likely to be born by the other party.
Are you or anyone else now suggesting or continuing to assert that my
conduct was aggressive and threatening of Dr Mark Bloch in any way?
I had made it abundantly clear to Dr Mark Bloch that my conduct was
intentioned to contest of matters for which a legal recourse was being
pursued and was being made in regard to his continued failure to respond
to my letters to him of 10 and 19 January 2012 over an obstruction by
him, which denied me a fair and equitable judicial process as tribunal
hearings, and manifestly is reliant on a hysteria as distortions of my
statements and which attempt to coerce the inconsequential into the
dramatic--and then this is transformed into action.
My outrage on the first occasion I was subject to such a scurrilous
approach to involuntary admission as perverse contrary conduct is that
the justification for such action, is only reliant on their observations
made of my initial reaction to being subjected to a brutal, unrestrained
and unaccountable incursion into my tranquility by malformed and
malicious characterisation of my conduct.
Calmness is constructive of good. Agitation is destructive of good. I
should not rush into action. I should first "be still and know that He
is God." Then I should act only as God directs me through my conscience.
Only trust, perfect trust in God, can keep me calm when all around me
are agitated. Calmness is trust in action. I should seek all things that
can help me to cultivate calmness. To attain material things, the world
learns to attain speed. To attain spiritual things, I have to learn to
attain a state of calm.
dolf
Mar 8, 2012, 8:33:04 PM3/8/12
to
On 9/03/12 6:05 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
IlBeBauck (ilbe...@gmail.com): “Atheists Choose Sanity: What is wrong
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
with atheism believing that: ‘Nothing created something as complex and
razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth can be here so we
can be here...from nothing and by nothing all without a shred of purpose
or meaning'? After all, given enough time like 4.5 billion years, an
razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth can be here so we
can be here...from nothing and by nothing all without a shred of purpose
accidental big explosion can make planets, stars, and suns and a piece
of pond scum graduating to a human brain which modern scientists can’t
of pond scum graduating to a human brain which modern scientists can’t
understand the gravity of the situation against you.”
dolf
Mar 8, 2012, 8:33:26 PM3/8/12
to theo...@bigpond.com.au
dolf: “Do you have anything further to say (even given such implausible
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
over your defamatory and untruthful characterizations of me on the
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
Internet and such lawful recourse by me will also be taken over your
persecution as actions over my ANZAC day protest of 25 April 2006.
These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to pursue
my lawful rights.
Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any remaining
opportunity for you and your family in this country.
By such statement made publicly, you are only just beginning to
understand the gravity of the situation against you.”
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 8, 2012, 9:51:46 PM3/8/12
to
>> because it is absent of belief in deities and supernatural agents.
>> Perhaps you meant anti-theism?
>>
>> The problem with classifying agnosticism as an honest position is that
>> not all agnostics are honest
>
> what problem? I never said all agnostics were honest. I spoke about
> agnosticism, not agnostic persons.
exclude agnostics because it served a necessary distinction.
> learn to read before you babble
Your ad hominem attack doesn't help your clarification.
>> (and in the spirit of impartiality I would also contend that not all
>> theists or atheists are honest)
>
> you don't say
>> because although the reason for someone's belief may or may not be
>> honest, and because they could be misrepresenting whether they
>> believe, the belief itself is independent from the reason or the
>> motivation for the belief.
>>
>> >> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
>> >
>> > Atheists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
>> > evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the sense
>> > in that!? and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism.
>>
>> Actually, it's atheism that has no evidence
>
> that's what I said!
with what I typed and what you said.
> learn to read before you babble.
Your ad hominem attack doesn't lend you any credibility.
>> because it's not needed, unlike theism that is dependent on claims of
>> the existence of deities and/or supernatural agents
>
> you don't say.
> do you try to teach your granny to suck eggs?
>> which, so far, haven't been confirmed with credible evidence. The
>> primary reason atheists are skeptical of these claims is because the
>> religious right-wing-nuts keep waving them around and trying to ram
>> them down our throats as if we need to be force-fed, and so these
>> responses are mostly a matter of self-defence -- if nobody was
>> proselytizing, there would be no need to be protective against it.
>>
>> > that's a croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is
>>
>> Your ad hominem
>
> you don't seem to understand the meaning of the term
mistaken in my assumption, could you please clarify what you meant?
>> attack doesn't help your position, and this one seems to indicate a
>> high degree of frustration on your part.
>
> I wasn't talking to you birdbrain.
confirms that you very likely are frustrated, probably because you're
unable to refute my logical counter-arguments to your claims.
>> You do not need to say it at all. That fact that you have to keep
>> repeating it should be a clear indication
>
> that ppl just don't get the message
this outcome including, but not limited to, the following that shouldn't
be ignored:
* lack of interest
* you've been "plonked" (you're in their killfile/ignore list)
* boredom (because proselytizers tend to be repetitive)
* disagreement with what your message promotes
* comprehension issues (possibly due to your incorrect anti-theistic
definition of atheism)
* cross-posting to many religious groups makes your motives suspect
Do you have any theories on why one of these reasons, or some other
reason, applies to your claim that people "don't get the message?"
>> to you that continued attempts will likely be a wasted effort on your
>> part
>
> possibly
I've provided here so far can only help you get on the right track to
examining some of the possibilities, and now it appears that I've been
successful in this regard with you (thanks for the confirmation).
>> -- why not focus on something more meaningful or productive instead?
>
> why don't you stop babbling
on something more meaningful or productive?
Also, your interrogative ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.
>> Even here in the alt.atheism newsgroup many other topics of discourse
>> occur and sometimes develop in to fascinating, philosophical, and
>> useful insight due to the wide variety of perspectives from the high
>> number of constructive contributors.
>
> and yet you find it necessary to talk to me here in alt.agnosticism
(and that also goes for "alt.atheism"), but nobody is forcing you to
reply (you should consider calling the police for assistance if
someone's forcing you to do something against your will).
>> > absolutely NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the
>> > existence of a deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this
>>
>> You're right, there is no obligation, and that applies equally to
>> religions, yet they routinely present fallacious claims about the
>> existence of deities and/or supernatural agents
>
> you can't know they're fallacious
been able to provide any credible, verifiable evidence to support these
claims, hence my logical conclusion that they're fallacious.
>> without credible evidence to support them.
>
> the credibility of any evidence is a matter of evaluation, not opinion.
evaluations and evaluation methods are also important, particularly
because "evaluation" on its own can have a vague meaning.
> what about testimonial evidence, current or historical?
experience as an atheist, that's an anecdote that reflects my own
observations, but it's not a representation of what other atheists may
experience, thus anecdotes aren't generally considered reliable forms of
evidence (hence the "testimonial" qualification).
The context is also important though, and each anecdote needs to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
>> Many people go along with this for reasons that are usually their own
>> (and hopefully informed), but then there are many more who disagree
>> with the fallacies, choose not to believe, or simply lack interest in
>> even considering the possibility of belief in the first place -- this
>> is a choice that depends on freedom, a natural right, which deserves
>> respect for the sake of free thinking.
>
> did they consult you when writing the USA constitution ?
>> For example, it matters not to me what you choose to believe in the
>> context of your personal life, but if you present your ideas here in
>> alt.atheism then they will likely be debated.
>
> no problem
>
>> One of the purposes of this alt.atheism newsgroup is to develop
>> meaningful discourse of ideologies, theologies, philosophies, etc.,
>
> yeh, like telling ppl to F off, or trying to belittle them or their beliefs
meaningful discourse.
>> and in particular when anyone presents an anti-atheistic idea it will
>> almost certainly be challenged or even ripped to shreds
>
> lol! you are just so full of yourself
>> by one of our [metaphorical] cats, but if this doesn't work for you
>> don't post your challenges here.
>
> what challenge? and I simply hit reply. and if I want your opinion I'll
> ask for it
challenge is implicitly available to anyone when you post publicly as
per the general collaborative design of usenet.
>> > 'sitting on the fence' crap is a croc as well!
>>
>> Of all the agnostics I've encountered, none have ever tried to
>> convince me that their position is correct.
>
> I wasn't talking to you, birdbrain. you've got tickets on yourself. 'of
> all the atheists I've encountered', none have ever babbled so much
attacks appear to be immature.
>> They do ask questions if the subject comes up, naturally, but they
>> appear to be quite content in their position which certainly seems far
>> more reasonable than what many religious extremists routinely attempt
>> to impose on others.
>>
>> What is the problem you have with agnosticism?
>
> I have no problem with it. why do you suppose that I have?
problem with it.
>> Do have the same problem with theologies that differ greatly from your
>> own?
>
> when did you stop abusing your child?
hominem attack that is based on assumptions about me.
I don't understand how this is relevant or beneficial.
> and it's not a theology.
> you're starting to come across as a somewhat immature non-existent
> being. how old are you 20, 30 ? oh, I forgot.. you don't exist. :(
I don't understand how my age or my state of existence is relevant or
beneficial.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents
appear as if they belonged to one category."
-- Adolf Hitler
Yap
Mar 8, 2012, 10:15:32 PM3/8/12
to
On Mar 9, 1:31 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
Well, honesty, law-abiding, moral and integrity are all part of the
values of atheism. This is especially so since atheists know that a
human is the only life one has.
However, for the bigots, they not only love their human lives, but
also the extended non-existent afterlife. Since they believe that they
can live for eternity, they can afford to have sins and crimes which
are forgivable.
This is why the molesting priests are so daring when they, perhaps in
their hindsight, do not believe there is a pixie in the sky.
>
> > And this is also why there are so many Christian priest molesters
> > since religious integrity/value is bankrupt.
>
> This is something that society is generally quite concerned about, and I
> suspect is one of the main contributors to the slow but steady decline
> in religion (most notably Catholicism and Christianity).
Yes, with more education and advancement of the society, people will
wake up to use their brains.
In the next 50 years, I bet atheism will be the victor in this world.
>
> The problem for churches is that they emphasize the idea that they can
> be trusted, which gains loyalty among their followers, and then they
> betray that trust by causing harm to those who are most vulnerable
> (typically children) which, in turn, can completely destroy the loyalty
> from those who are willing to "wake up from the great dream of fallacy."
Nothing is more criminal as to abuse children who are innocent and
naive.
You do not find many people in socialist/communist countries having
that many of molesting cases as in the West.
The ancient teaching arising from Israel/Arab nations based on their
religion is one hell of barbaric and disgusting content.
values of atheism. This is especially so since atheists know that a
human is the only life one has.
However, for the bigots, they not only love their human lives, but
also the extended non-existent afterlife. Since they believe that they
can live for eternity, they can afford to have sins and crimes which
are forgivable.
This is why the molesting priests are so daring when they, perhaps in
their hindsight, do not believe there is a pixie in the sky.
>
> > And this is also why there are so many Christian priest molesters
> > since religious integrity/value is bankrupt.
>
> This is something that society is generally quite concerned about, and I
> suspect is one of the main contributors to the slow but steady decline
> in religion (most notably Catholicism and Christianity).
wake up to use their brains.
In the next 50 years, I bet atheism will be the victor in this world.
>
> The problem for churches is that they emphasize the idea that they can
> be trusted, which gains loyalty among their followers, and then they
> betray that trust by causing harm to those who are most vulnerable
> (typically children) which, in turn, can completely destroy the loyalty
> from those who are willing to "wake up from the great dream of fallacy."
naive.
You do not find many people in socialist/communist countries having
that many of molesting cases as in the West.
The ancient teaching arising from Israel/Arab nations based on their
religion is one hell of barbaric and disgusting content.
dolf
Mar 8, 2012, 11:03:08 PM3/8/12
to
A copy of this CD ROM as Statements was served on those attending at my
premises @ 1325 hours 9 March 2012
Nous: #48
Time: 13:25 hrs
Date: 2012.10.15
Torah: #40 #6 #40 %81 = #5
Dao: Forgetting Knowledge
Tetra: #20 - Advance
I-Ching: H35 - Progress
Latin: Revalator {God the end of all things} Alt: Mihael {The Who & What
of God} {
1. PROTECTS IN MYSTERIOUS OPERATIONS, BRINGS EVERY EXPERIENCE TO A HAPPY
CONCLUSION
2. SCIENCE OF PHYSICS & MEDICINE
3. HEALTH & LONGEVITY
4. Atembui
}
- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:6,col:3
These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to pursue
my lawful rights.
Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any remaining
opportunity for you and your family in this country.
By such statement made publicly, you are only just beginning to
understand the gravity of the situation against you.”
premises @ 1325 hours 9 March 2012
Nous: #48
Time: 13:25 hrs
Date: 2012.10.15
Torah: #40 #6 #40 %81 = #5
Dao: Forgetting Knowledge
Tetra: #20 - Advance
I-Ching: H35 - Progress
Latin: Revalator {God the end of all things} Alt: Mihael {The Who & What
of God} {
1. PROTECTS IN MYSTERIOUS OPERATIONS, BRINGS EVERY EXPERIENCE TO A HAPPY
CONCLUSION
2. SCIENCE OF PHYSICS & MEDICINE
3. HEALTH & LONGEVITY
4. Atembui
}
- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:6,col:3
On 9/03/12 6:05 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
IlBeBauck (ilbe...@gmail.com): “Atheists Choose Sanity: What is wrong
> That's an interesting recommendation for a non-existent goddess.
with atheism believing that: ‘Nothing created something as complex and
razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth can be here so we
can be here...from nothing and by nothing all without a shred of purpose
or meaning'? After all, given enough time like 4.5 billion years, an
razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth can be here so we
can be here...from nothing and by nothing all without a shred of purpose
accidental big explosion can make planets, stars, and suns and a piece
of pond scum graduating to a human brain which modern scientists can’t
of pond scum graduating to a human brain which modern scientists can’t
begin to duplicate. So, atheism makes really good sense doesn’t it? (not!).”
Devil’s Advocaat (manky...@gmail.com): “You need purpose and meaning
in your life?
Why look outside yourself?
Create your own meaning.
Create your own purpose.
Then your life will be of greater value.
Far more than it is now.”
Yap (hhya...@gmail.com): “Trouble is, I2be idiot doesn't know how,
having been indoctrinated not to think or question.”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Dolf does not choose sanity.”
dolf: “I intend to the pursue legal action against you.”
Fidem Turbare (the non-existent atheist goddess): “I wonder if there's
some plagiarism involved. Sometimes the content posted appears to be a
violation of privacy by a lawyer. At any rate, it always appears to be
unrelated to whatever topic is at hand.”
Devil’s Advocaat (manky...@gmail.com): “You need purpose and meaning
in your life?
Why look outside yourself?
Create your own meaning.
Create your own purpose.
Then your life will be of greater value.
Far more than it is now.”
Yap (hhya...@gmail.com): “Trouble is, I2be idiot doesn't know how,
having been indoctrinated not to think or question.”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Dolf does not choose sanity.”
dolf: “I intend to the pursue legal action against you.”
Fidem Turbare (the non-existent atheist goddess): “I wonder if there's
some plagiarism involved. Sometimes the content posted appears to be a
violation of privacy by a lawyer. At any rate, it always appears to be
unrelated to whatever topic is at hand.”
dolf: “Do you have anything further to say (even given such implausible
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
over your defamatory and untruthful characterisations of me on the
rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement is sought and
retribution is undertaken?”
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you just
stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you won’t
bother me and I won’t bother you.
Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the moment.”
dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal action
Internet and such lawful recourse by me will also be taken over your
persecution as actions regarding my ANZAC day protest of 25 April 2006.
These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to pursue
my lawful rights.
Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any remaining
opportunity for you and your family in this country.
By such statement made publicly, you are only just beginning to
understand the gravity of the situation against you.”
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 8, 2012, 11:31:27 PM3/8/12
to
> However, for the bigots, they not only love their human lives, but
> also the extended non-existent afterlife. Since they believe that they
> can live for eternity, they can afford to have sins and crimes which
> are forgivable.
> This is why the molesting priests are so daring when they, perhaps in
> their hindsight, do not believe there is a pixie in the sky.
>>> And this is also why there are so many Christian priest molesters
>>> since religious integrity/value is bankrupt.
>>
>> This is something that society is generally quite concerned about, and I
>> suspect is one of the main contributors to the slow but steady decline
>> in religion (most notably Catholicism and Christianity).
>
> Yes, with more education and advancement of the society, people will
> wake up to use their brains.
> In the next 50 years, I bet atheism will be the victor in this world.
religious right-wing-nuts make, the more confirmation we have that
they're worried about this.
In a sense, the militant atheists are striving to reduce that 50 years.
>> The problem for churches is that they emphasize the idea that they can
>> be trusted, which gains loyalty among their followers, and then they
>> betray that trust by causing harm to those who are most vulnerable
>> (typically children) which, in turn, can completely destroy the loyalty
>> from those who are willing to "wake up from the great dream of fallacy."
>
> Nothing is more criminal as to abuse children who are innocent and
> naive.
> You do not find many people in socialist/communist countries having
> that many of molesting cases as in the West.
West though too, which is a factor that needs to be considered seriously
in such an assessment. The governments providing care, aid, and rescue
services for victims, particularly those of child molestation, are
likely also a contributing factor.
> The ancient teaching arising from Israel/Arab nations based on their
> religion is one hell of barbaric and disgusting content.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
observation, not overturning it."
-- Bulwer Lytton
Theo Bekkers
Mar 9, 2012, 1:15:01 AM3/9/12
to
"dolf" wrote
> dolf: “Do you have anything further to say (even given such
> implausible rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement
> is sought and retribution is undertaken?”
> Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you
> just stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you
> won’t bother me and I won’t bother you.
> Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the
> moment.”
> dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal
> action over your defamatory and untruthful characterizations of me
> on the Internet and such lawful recourse by me will also be taken
> over your persecution as actions over my ANZAC day protest of 25
> April 2006.
> These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to
> pursue my lawful rights.
> Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any
> remaining opportunity for you and your family in this country.
> By such statement made publicly, you are only just beginning to
> understand the gravity of the situation against you.”
Thank you for the four emails threatening me with retribution and
legal action Dolf.
Why don't you just stop posting to aus.religion and stick to annoying
those other newsgroups in the header. Or you could post something
relevant or on topic to the conversations you are hijacking with your
irrelevant dribble. If you want to know why people have allegedly
persecuted you in the past and tried vainly to remove you from the
internet just look in the mirror and you will see the problem before
you.
Or you could just take a couple of the blue pills. Choose sanity!
Theo
> dolf: “Do you have anything further to say (even given such
> implausible rubbery words as yours) in your defence before judgement
> is sought and retribution is undertaken?”
> Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “Go for it. Why don’t you
> just stop your silly irrelevant ramblings in aus.religion? Then you
> won’t bother me and I won’t bother you.
> Have a better life than you appear to be experiencing at the
> moment.”
> dolf: “Thank-you for your acknowledgement of my intended legal
> action over your defamatory and untruthful characterizations of me
> on the Internet and such lawful recourse by me will also be taken
> over your persecution as actions over my ANZAC day protest of 25
> April 2006.
> These statements have been added to my www-page as intention to
> pursue my lawful rights.
> Given those legal claims, I don’t consider that there is any
> remaining opportunity for you and your family in this country.
> By such statement made publicly, you are only just beginning to
> understand the gravity of the situation against you.”
legal action Dolf.
Why don't you just stop posting to aus.religion and stick to annoying
those other newsgroups in the header. Or you could post something
relevant or on topic to the conversations you are hijacking with your
irrelevant dribble. If you want to know why people have allegedly
persecuted you in the past and tried vainly to remove you from the
internet just look in the mirror and you will see the problem before
you.
Or you could just take a couple of the blue pills. Choose sanity!
Theo
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 9, 2012, 1:20:55 AM3/9/12
to
newsgroups to stop posting in.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Eric Theodore Cartman
Theo Bekkers
Mar 9, 2012, 2:27:46 AM3/9/12
to
"felix_unger" wrote in message news:9rrn7...@mid.individual.net...
> On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
> no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
> problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me
> the honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
So it has value for you because you do/don't, sort-of-might believe.
That sounds very valuable to me. I don't have a position on the taste
of Yak milk. I treasure that non-position.
>> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the
>> rear.
>> :-)
> Atheists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
> evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the
> sense in that!?
Atheists have no faith!
You want atheists to provide evidence for the non-existence of gods?
Sigh!
Theists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
evidence, and refute all other gods, despite the evidence.
> and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism. that's a
> croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is absolutely
> NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the existence of a
> deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this 'sitting on the
> fence' crap is a croc as well!
There's no evidence for theism.
Please show how there is evidence for gods? May I suggest Thor, Zeus,
Odin, Allah, Jehovah, The Christian Triplets.
Oh hang on, didn't you previously say that Odin and Zeus are fiction
and the only god we should be seeking evidence for is the Christian
Deity? That's not a very agnostic position Pete.
You're not sitting on the fence or truly agnostic if you are agnostic
about just the one deity. You also need to be agnostic about the Great
Green Meany, the god who created the little green men on mars..
Go on, come back and tell me the only deity you can consider is the
Christian God. You know you want to.
Theo
> On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
> no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
> problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me
> the honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
That sounds very valuable to me. I don't have a position on the taste
of Yak milk. I treasure that non-position.
>> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the
>> rear.
>> :-)
> Atheists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
> evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the
> sense in that!?
You want atheists to provide evidence for the non-existence of gods?
Sigh!
Theists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
evidence, and refute all other gods, despite the evidence.
> and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism. that's a
> croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is absolutely
> NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the existence of a
> deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this 'sitting on the
> fence' crap is a croc as well!
Please show how there is evidence for gods? May I suggest Thor, Zeus,
Odin, Allah, Jehovah, The Christian Triplets.
Oh hang on, didn't you previously say that Odin and Zeus are fiction
and the only god we should be seeking evidence for is the Christian
Deity? That's not a very agnostic position Pete.
You're not sitting on the fence or truly agnostic if you are agnostic
about just the one deity. You also need to be agnostic about the Great
Green Meany, the god who created the little green men on mars..
Go on, come back and tell me the only deity you can consider is the
Christian God. You know you want to.
Theo
felix_unger
Mar 9, 2012, 3:37:23 AM3/9/12
to
methnk thou dost protest too much..
On 09-March-2012 6:27 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "felix_unger" wrote in message news:9rrn7...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> On 08-March-2012 11:17 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
>>> Agnosticism have value? And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
>> no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I see
>> problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me
>> the honest position is agnostic. not for everyone tho.
> So it has value for you because you do/don't, sort-of-might believe.
> That sounds very valuable to me. I don't have a position on the taste
> of Yak milk. I treasure that non-position.
your problem not mine
>
>>> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the
>>> rear.
>>> :-)
>> Atheists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
>> evidence, and refute all others, despite the evidence. what's the
>> sense in that!?
> Atheists have no faith!
prefer) they just won't admit it.
> You want atheists to provide evidence for the non-existence of gods?
> Sigh!
> Theists have faith in only one possibility for which there's no
> evidence, and refute all other gods, despite the evidence.
>
>> and don't try to tell me there's no evidence for theism. that's a
>> croc! and how many times do I need to say it?? there is absolutely
>> NO obligation on anyone to decide the question of the existence of a
>> deity, let alone it's nature or attributes. so this 'sitting on the
>> fence' crap is a croc as well!
> There's no evidence for theism.
> Please show how there is evidence for gods? May I suggest Thor, Zeus,
> Odin, Allah, Jehovah, The Christian Triplets.
> Oh hang on, didn't you previously say that Odin and Zeus are fiction
> and the only god we should be seeking evidence for is the Christian
> Deity? That's not a very agnostic position Pete.
> You're not sitting on the fence or truly agnostic if you are agnostic
> about just the one deity. You also need to be agnostic about the Great
> Green Meany, the god who created the little green men on mars..
> Go on, come back and tell me the only deity you can consider is the
> Christian God. You know you want to.
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no
target to fire at”
>
target to fire at”
>
> Theo
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
pnyikos
Mar 9, 2012, 1:02:50 PM3/9/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
On Mar 8, 1:14 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
of them is about atheism:
alt.talk.creationism, alt.religion.christian, aus.religion.christian,
alt.agnosticism
> >> In addition to confirming that you are unable to refute my response,
> >> your ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.
>
> > you're comment needed no response. it was just talk for the sake of
> > talking.
>
> You have now provided confirmation for the second time that you are
> unable to refute my response.
>
> Your insult also reveals that you may be frustrated by your apparent
> inability to refute my response.
You are building castles in the air. See above.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-06 18:19, felix_unger wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 07-March-2012 12:51 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> > goddess wrote:
> >> On 2012-Mar-06 17:44, felix_unger wrote:
> >>> On 07-March-2012 11:57 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> >>> goddess wrote:
> >>>> On 2012-Mar-06 14:57, felix_unger wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-06 18:19, felix_unger wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 07-March-2012 12:51 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> > goddess wrote:
> >> On 2012-Mar-06 17:44, felix_unger wrote:
> >>> On 07-March-2012 11:57 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> >>> goddess wrote:
> >>>> On 2012-Mar-06 14:57, felix_unger wrote:
> >>>>> On 07-March-2012 6:04 AM, IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>> <89be2010-8c47-4085-8844-75afedd17...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>>> BroilJAB<DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> They knowingly choose Hell.
> >>>>>>>> Since atheists
> >>>>>>> not only atheists
>
> >>>>>>>> have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
> >>>>>>>> anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
> >>>>>> On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>> <89be2010-8c47-4085-8844-75afedd17...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>>> BroilJAB<DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> They knowingly choose Hell.
> >>>>>>>> Since atheists
> >>>>>>> not only atheists
>
> >>>>>>>> have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
> >>>>>>>> anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
> >>>>>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> >>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>> it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
> >>>>>>> implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
> >>>>>>> contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> >>>>>>> assumptions or
> >>>>>>> evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no
> >>>>>>> necessity, and
> >>>>>>> certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
>
> >>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>> it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
> >>>>>>> implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
> >>>>>>> contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> >>>>>>> assumptions or
> >>>>>>> evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no
> >>>>>>> necessity, and
> >>>>>>> certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
>
> >>>>>> What is wrong with atheism believing that "Nothing created something
> >>>>>> as complex and razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth
> >>>>>> can be here so we can be here...from nothing and by nothing all
> >>>>>> without a shred of purpose or meaning ' ? Afterall, given enough
> >>>>>> as complex and razor edge precise as our cosmos needs to be so earth
> >>>>>> can be here so we can be here...from nothing and by nothing all
> >>>>>> time like 4.5 billion years, an accidental big explosion can make
> >>>>>> planets, stars, and suns and a piece of pond scum graduating to a
> >>>>>> planets, stars, and suns and a piece of pond scum graduating to a
> >>>>>> human brain which modern scientists cant begin to duplicate . So,
> >>>>>> atheism makes really good sense doesnt it ?! (not) .
>
> >>>>> the post was about the existence of hell, not atheism. a person can
> >>>>> believe in a creator God without believing in heaven or hell or
> >>>>> even an
> >>>>> afterlife.
>
> >>>> By being posting in alt.atheism, the context of atheism applies.
>
> >>> silly twit
Indeed, the article is crossposted to four other newsgroups, and none
> >>>>>> atheism makes really good sense doesnt it ?! (not) .
>
> >>>>> the post was about the existence of hell, not atheism. a person can
> >>>>> believe in a creator God without believing in heaven or hell or
> >>>>> even an
> >>>>> afterlife.
>
> >>>> By being posting in alt.atheism, the context of atheism applies.
>
> >>> silly twit
of them is about atheism:
alt.talk.creationism, alt.religion.christian, aus.religion.christian,
alt.agnosticism
> >> In addition to confirming that you are unable to refute my response,
> >> your ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.
>
> > you're comment needed no response. it was just talk for the sake of
> > talking.
>
> You have now provided confirmation for the second time that you are
> unable to refute my response.
>
> Your insult also reveals that you may be frustrated by your apparent
> inability to refute my response.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
pnyikos
Mar 9, 2012, 1:09:10 PM3/9/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 8, 2:29 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > wrote:
its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
realm.
> And this is also why there are so many Christian priest molesters
Not any more. The Roman Catholic Church is in the midst of a gigantic
cleanup campagn, unlike the public schools, where molestation is also
rampant.
And unlike secular society, where child molestation by Roman Polanski
was widely excused and petitions were signed to allow him back in the
USA.
Peter Nyikos
> On Mar 7, 9:09 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 07-March-2012 9:42 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:45 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>
>
>
> > On 07-March-2012 9:42 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > >>> "felix_unger" wrote
>
> > >> On 06-March-2012 8:24 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > >>> "felix_unger" wrote
>
> > >>>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> > >>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
> > >>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
> > >>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> > >>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> > >>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
> > >>>> about it.
> > >>>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something
> > >>>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed
> > >>>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> > >>>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> > >>>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address assertions
> > >>>> about it.
> > >>> So you're an atheist then?
> > >> no. there's no value in it
> > > The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>
> > no. my integrity is intact now.
>
> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
Agnosticism does, or should. Atheism either has no core values, or
> > >> no. there's no value in it
> > > The only value is that your integrity would be intact.
>
> > no. my integrity is intact now.
>
> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
realm.
> And this is also why there are so many Christian priest molesters
cleanup campagn, unlike the public schools, where molestation is also
rampant.
And unlike secular society, where child molestation by Roman Polanski
was widely excused and petitions were signed to allow him back in the
USA.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Mar 9, 2012, 1:16:18 PM3/9/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 8, 7:17 am, "Theo Bekkers" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> "felix_unger" wrote
are both lacking.
> And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
It is a philosophy.
> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
There is no fence-sitting in responsible agnosticism, just rational
assessment of the evidence.
Your quote betrays a political mindset; Apparently what counts for
you is not evidence, but zeal for the cause in which you believe.
> :-)
Oh, wait, I overlooked the smiley. What does it mean in this case?
If it means, "My, that was quite a *bon mot*, as well as being right
on target" then my analysis stands.
> Theo
> "felix_unger" wrote
>
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> "felix_unger" wrote
>
> >>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> >>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
> >>> something
> >>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
> >>> disputed
> >>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> >>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> >>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
> >>> assertions
> >>> about it.
> >> So you're an atheist then?
> > no. there's no value in it
>
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> "felix_unger" wrote
>
> >>> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should
> >>> consider it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of
> >>> something
> >>> are implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely
> >>> disputed
> >>> by contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable
> >>> assumptions or evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it,
> >>> and no necessity, and certainly no obligation, to address
> >>> assertions
> >>> about it.
> >> So you're an atheist then?
> > no. there's no value in it
>
> You think sitting on the agnostic fence has value? How does
> Agnosticism have value?
By acknowledging that overwhelming evidence for AND against a deity
> Agnosticism have value?
are both lacking.
> And do you think Agnosticism is a religion?
> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the rear.
assessment of the evidence.
Your quote betrays a political mindset; Apparently what counts for
you is not evidence, but zeal for the cause in which you believe.
> :-)
Oh, wait, I overlooked the smiley. What does it mean in this case?
If it means, "My, that was quite a *bon mot*, as well as being right
on target" then my analysis stands.
> Theo
Zacharias Mulletstein
Mar 9, 2012, 1:24:46 PM3/9/12
to
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c1cc2a41-5cc0-4f0e...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
question of this. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no integrity in
acknostisism.
Barry OGrady
Mar 9, 2012, 3:38:17 PM3/9/12
to
=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!
dolf
Mar 9, 2012, 5:45:00 PM3/9/12
to
Yeah, its called wiped out!
On 10/03/12 5:09 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> Not any more. The Roman Catholic Church is in the midst of a gigantic
> cleanup campa[i]gn
On 10/03/12 5:09 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> Not any more. The Roman Catholic Church is in the midst of a gigantic
dolf
Mar 9, 2012, 5:48:29 PM3/9/12
to
And the wafer didn't crumble, nor was it sloppy when it shoved up where
the sun don't shine.
the sun don't shine.
dolf
Mar 9, 2012, 5:49:16 PM3/9/12
to
And the wafer didn't crumble, nor was it sloppy when it was shoved up
where the sun don't shine.
On 10/03/12 5:16 AM, pnyikos wrote:
On 10/03/12 5:16 AM, pnyikos wrote:
felix_unger
Mar 9, 2012, 6:38:18 PM3/9/12
to
>
>> :-)
> Oh, wait, I overlooked the smiley. What does it mean in this case?
>
> If it means, "My, that was quite a *bon mot*, as well as being right
> on target" then my analysis stands.
>
>> Theo
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”
“Atheists are wankers. They cling desperately to only one possibility and deny all others. They have faith in that for which there is no evidence, nor ever can be, and ridicule those who have faith in that for which there is evidence”
rgds,
Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”
Smiler
Mar 9, 2012, 6:51:49 PM3/9/12
to
spoil from their runs! Almost like ancient humans would do. But still no
fossils...
dolf
Mar 9, 2012, 7:02:50 PM3/9/12
to
And the wafer didn't crumble, nor was it sloppy when it was shoved up
where the sun don't shine.
where the sun don't shine.
On 10/03/12 5:16 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> Oh, wait, I overlooked the smiley. What does it mean in this case?
>
> If it means, "My, that was quite a *bon mot*, as well as being right
> on target" then my analysis stands.
>
Theo Bekkers: (theo...@bigpond.com.au): “So it has value for you
> Oh, wait, I overlooked the smiley. What does it mean in this case?
>
> If it means, "My, that was quite a *bon mot*, as well as being right
> on target" then my analysis stands.
>
because you do/don't, sort-of-might believe. That sounds very valuable
to me. I don't have a position on the taste of Yak milk. I treasure that
non-position.”
to me. I don't have a position on the taste of Yak milk. I treasure that
Pnyikos (nyi...@bellsouth.net): “Oh, wait, I overlooked the smiley.
What does it mean in this case?
If it means, ‘My, that was quite a *bon mot*, as well as being right on
target’ then my analysis stands.”
If it means, ‘My, that was quite a *bon mot*, as well as being right on
dolf: “And the wafer didn't crumble, nor was it sloppy when it was
shoved up where the sun don't shine.”
Zen teachings can be likened to "the finger pointing at the moon". Zen
teachings point to the moon, awakening, the realization of the nature of
reality, which is devoid of independently existing "things". But the
Zen-tradition also warns against taking its teachings, the pointing
finger, to be this insight itself:
Wujin Chang, a nun, asked the Sixth Zen patriarch, Hui Neng, for help in
understanding the Mahanirvana Sutra. The master answered that he could
not read, but if the nun would read it aloud for him, he would do his
best to help her.The nun then asked, "If you can't even read the words,
how can you understand the truth behind them?"
"Truth and words are unrelated. Truth can be compared to the moon,"
answered Hui Neng, pointing to the moon with his finger, "And words can
be compared to a finger. I can use my finger to point out the moon, but
my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger in order to be
able to see the moon".
This warning against confusing the finger and the moon resembles the
Diamond-sutra:[E]very disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak sambhodi
should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other
selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard,
also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the
non-existence of such conceptions.While the Tathagata, in his teaching,
constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples
should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas.
[Wikipedia 2012: ZEN]
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 9, 2012, 7:12:05 PM3/9/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"My calculations show that even if God dedicated all of his time meeting
the dead, you would only get to meet him for half of one second. There
are 56 million deaths occurring annually and only 32 million seconds in
a year."
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason ("The Pope is Humpty Dumpty")
pnyikos
Mar 9, 2012, 8:33:39 PM3/9/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 9, 1:24 pm, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Actually there are two main varieties of agnosticism: the one you name
and the original Thomas Huxley version, which denied even the
possibility of human beings ever being certain about whether God
exists or not.
Did you deliberately use the spelling "acknosticism" to exclude this
latter form?
> There is no integrity in acknostisism.
My point was that there *can* be integrity, more easily than with
either theism or atheism. There can be integrity there too, but one
has to work harder at it.
Peter Nyikos
<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
and the original Thomas Huxley version, which denied even the
possibility of human beings ever being certain about whether God
exists or not.
Did you deliberately use the spelling "acknosticism" to exclude this
latter form?
> There is no integrity in acknostisism.
either theism or atheism. There can be integrity there too, but one
has to work harder at it.
Peter Nyikos
felix_unger
Mar 9, 2012, 9:12:43 PM3/9/12
to
agnostic
>
> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
> God is a spirit. 0% proof!
rgds,
Pete
-------
"Bithdays are good for you- statistics show that the more you have the longer you live"
Barry OGrady
Mar 10, 2012, 12:33:52 AM3/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:12:43 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:
>On 10-March-2012 7:38 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:24:46 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>> <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "pnyikos"<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:c1cc2a41-5cc0-4f0e...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Mar 8, 2:29 am, Yap<hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
>>>> Agnosticism does, or should. Atheism either has no core values, or
>>>> its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
>>>> realm.
>>> Acknostisism is the lack of belief or disbelief of God. There is no
>>> question of this. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no integrity in
>>> acknostisism.
>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>
>It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist and
>agnostic
It is no more a word than is ppl.
>--
>rgds,
>
>Pete
wrote:
>On 10-March-2012 7:38 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:24:46 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>> <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "pnyikos"<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:c1cc2a41-5cc0-4f0e...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Mar 8, 2:29 am, Yap<hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
>>>> Agnosticism does, or should. Atheism either has no core values, or
>>>> its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
>>>> realm.
>>> Acknostisism is the lack of belief or disbelief of God. There is no
>>> question of this. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no integrity in
>>> acknostisism.
>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>
>It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist and
>agnostic
>--
>rgds,
>
>Pete
felix_unger
Mar 10, 2012, 12:45:10 AM3/10/12
to
>
>> --
>> rgds,
>>
>> Pete
> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
> God is a spirit. 0% proof!
rgds,
Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
“It doesn't matter [who the leader is] the Labor Party is rotten, the policies stink, the lies insufferable, and the waste intolerable. The Muppets could do a better job!”
“All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
“What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. At the end of the day, we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
“Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 10, 2012, 1:43:44 AM3/10/12
to
On 2012-Mar-09 21:45, felix_unger wrote:
> On 10-March-2012 4:33 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:12:43 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-March-2012 7:38 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:24:46 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>>>> <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "pnyikos"<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c1cc2a41-5cc0-4f0e...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:29 am, Yap<hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
>>>>>> Agnosticism does, or should. Atheism either has no core values, or
>>>>>> its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
>>>>>> realm.
>>>>> Acknostisism is the lack of belief or disbelief of God. There is no
>>>>> question of this. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no integrity in
>>>>> acknostisism.
>>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist and
>>> agnostic
>> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>
> It is you moron
Actually, it's an abbreviation that represents a word, which technically
> On 10-March-2012 4:33 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:12:43 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-March-2012 7:38 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:24:46 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>>>> <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "pnyikos"<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c1cc2a41-5cc0-4f0e...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:29 am, Yap<hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
>>>>>> Agnosticism does, or should. Atheism either has no core values, or
>>>>>> its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
>>>>>> realm.
>>>>> Acknostisism is the lack of belief or disbelief of God. There is no
>>>>> question of this. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no integrity in
>>>>> acknostisism.
>>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist and
>>> agnostic
>> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>
> It is you moron
means that it's not a word.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words."
-- Philip K. Dick
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 10, 2012, 1:57:38 AM3/10/12
to
subject for this thread focuses on atheists which also justifies the
context of atheism.
>>>> In addition to confirming that you are unable to refute my response,
>>>> your ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.
>>
>>> you're comment needed no response. it was just talk for the sake of
>>> talking.
>>
>> You have now provided confirmation for the second time that you are
>> unable to refute my response.
>>
>> Your insult also reveals that you may be frustrated by your apparent
>> inability to refute my response.
>
> You are building castles in the air. See above.
that I'm thinking about it (I am thinking about it now, but there's a
psychological explanation for that).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
-- Dr. Gregory House
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 10, 2012, 7:39:26 PM3/10/12
to
On 2012-Mar-09 15:51, Smiler wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:30:26 +0000, Alex W. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:35:07 +0000, Smiler wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>> >> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
>>>>> homosexuality.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>>>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>>>
>>> I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
>>> moles are found...
>>
>> Their molehills:
>>
>> http://wallpaperstock.net/three-pyramids_wallpapers_12277_1280x960_1.html
>
> Those giant moles were very sophisticated. See how neatly they stacked the
> spoil from their runs! Almost like ancient humans would do. But still no
> fossils...
Is it too early to add "giant mole" as another possible contender for
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:30:26 +0000, Alex W. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:35:07 +0000, Smiler wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>> >> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
>>>>> homosexuality.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>>>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>>>
>>> I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
>>> moles are found...
>>
>> Their molehills:
>>
>> http://wallpaperstock.net/three-pyramids_wallpapers_12277_1280x960_1.html
>
> Those giant moles were very sophisticated. See how neatly they stacked the
> spoil from their runs! Almost like ancient humans would do. But still no
> fossils...
the title of "Mascot of Atheism?"
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (a.k.a., Lenin)
felix_unger
Mar 10, 2012, 10:19:11 PM3/10/12
to
On 10-March-2012 5:43 PM, Findem Two-beers, the non-existent atheist
it's not
> which technically means that it's not a word.
>
--
“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”
> which technically means that it's not a word.
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
"No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
Barry OGrady
Mar 11, 2012, 4:54:43 AM3/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:45:10 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>>> --
>>> rgds,
>>>
>>> Pete
>--
wrote:
>On 10-March-2012 4:33 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:12:43 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-March-2012 7:38 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:24:46 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>>>> <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "pnyikos"<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c1cc2a41-5cc0-4f0e...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:29 am, Yap<hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
>>>>>> Agnosticism does, or should. Atheism either has no core values, or
>>>>>> its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
>>>>>> realm.
>>>>> Acknostisism is the lack of belief or disbelief of God. There is no
>>>>> question of this. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no integrity in
>>>>> acknostisism.
>>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist and
>>> agnostic
>> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>
>It is you moron
Why is it you moron?
>On 10-March-2012 4:33 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:12:43 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-March-2012 7:38 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:24:46 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>>>> <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "pnyikos"<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c1cc2a41-5cc0-4f0e...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:29 am, Yap<hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Atheism has integrity as its core value.
>>>>>> Agnosticism does, or should. Atheism either has no core values, or
>>>>>> its only core value is the postulated nonexistence of a supernatural
>>>>>> realm.
>>>>> Acknostisism is the lack of belief or disbelief of God. There is no
>>>>> question of this. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no integrity in
>>>>> acknostisism.
>>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist and
>>> agnostic
>> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>
>It is you moron
>>> --
>>> rgds,
>>>
>>> Pete
>--
felix_unger
Mar 11, 2012, 6:13:08 AM3/11/12
to
(that's where I got the definition that I posted), but now I don't, only
this thread. ?? seems it could be just a made-up word?
> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
> God is a spirit. 0% proof!
ilbe...@gmail.com
Mar 11, 2012, 11:11:39 AM3/11/12
to
On Mar 5, 7:35 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <89be2010-8c47-4085-8844-75afedd17...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > BroilJAB<DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >> They knowingly choose Hell.
> > Since atheists
>
> not only atheists
>
> > have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
> > anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
>
> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should consider
> it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
> implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
> contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable assumptions or
> evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no necessity, and
> certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
>
> On 06-March-2012 9:15 AM, Vurgil wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <89be2010-8c47-4085-8844-75afedd17...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > BroilJAB<DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >> They knowingly choose Hell.
> > Since atheists
>
> not only atheists
>
> > have no good reason to suppose that there actually is
> > anything like a "hell", they do not "know" any such thing.
>
> correct. when considering the veracity of something, one should consider
> it's origins. if the reasons for the existence of something are
> implausible, founded in ignorance, dispelled or largely disputed by
> contemporary knowledge, or unsubstantiated by reasonable assumptions or
> evidence, there's no good reason to believe in it, and no necessity, and
> certainly no obligation, to address assertions about it.
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> “If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
>
> "Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
>
> “It doesn't matter [who the leader is] the Labor Party is rotten, the policies stink, the lies insufferable, and the waste intolerable. The Muppets could do a better job!”
>
> “All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”
>
> "If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
>
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>
> "Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
>
> “What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. At the end of the day, we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer -http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> “If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
>
> "Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
>
> “It doesn't matter [who the leader is] the Labor Party is rotten, the policies stink, the lies insufferable, and the waste intolerable. The Muppets could do a better job!”
>
> “All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”
>
> "If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
>
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>
> "Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
>
>
> “Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
> “Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe ....all by
accident and without a shred of intended purpose ! That scenario
is all about rejecting the personal theistic Creator at all costs
because he is a fly in ones ointment to lifestyle choices...usually
immoral . Atheism requires the person be disengenuous to himself
and that a charade be maintained. I didnt have enough faith to
maintain my atheism .
ThomMadura
Mar 11, 2012, 12:04:26 PM3/11/12
to
On 3/11/2012 11:11 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:>> “Wayne Swan
WE can PROVE that all life forms on earth have common DNA - from that
initial being - and the top 10 largest christian denomination -
representing over 80% of all christians have accepted that to be the case.
....all by
> accident and without a shred of intended purpose ! That scenario
> is all about rejecting the personal theistic Creator
Since NO one has every proven the existence of a personal theistic
creator in reality - there is NONE to reject
So far - all claims have turned out to be fairy tales - and we CAN prove
that.
The story of creation in the bible is simply wrong - right from the very
first chapter.
at all costs
> because he is a fly in ones ointment to lifestyle choices...usually
> immoral . Atheism requires the person be disengenuous to himself
> and that a charade be maintained.
No - it is YOU who are being disingenuous - not atheists
YOU have failed to offer proof of the existence of a god - and yet
atheists CAN provide examples of claims of religion that CANNOT be true
about their gods.
YOu are advocating the praise of a mass murderer of children and infants
from a bunch of fairy tales. IF the great flood actually happened - then
it would have killed a million children under the age of reason - mass
murder - pure and simple.
For example - it is WITHOUT question that Evening and morning on earth
happen because of the relationship of what part of the earth faces the
sun at any given time.
No sun - no morning and evening
Darkness is NOT night - there is darkness in a cave during the day.
Light is not day - Teams play sporting events in lighted stadiums during
the night.
A god that knew everything would NOT get this wrong - but the HUMANS
that created the nonsense of the bible clearly DID.
THEISTS choose stupidity
threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
>
> It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
> ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
> scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe
And yet - that is exactly HOW it happened -
>
> It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
> ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
> scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe
WE can PROVE that all life forms on earth have common DNA - from that
initial being - and the top 10 largest christian denomination -
representing over 80% of all christians have accepted that to be the case.
....all by
> accident and without a shred of intended purpose ! That scenario
> is all about rejecting the personal theistic Creator
creator in reality - there is NONE to reject
So far - all claims have turned out to be fairy tales - and we CAN prove
that.
The story of creation in the bible is simply wrong - right from the very
first chapter.
at all costs
> because he is a fly in ones ointment to lifestyle choices...usually
> immoral . Atheism requires the person be disengenuous to himself
> and that a charade be maintained.
YOU have failed to offer proof of the existence of a god - and yet
atheists CAN provide examples of claims of religion that CANNOT be true
about their gods.
YOu are advocating the praise of a mass murderer of children and infants
from a bunch of fairy tales. IF the great flood actually happened - then
it would have killed a million children under the age of reason - mass
murder - pure and simple.
For example - it is WITHOUT question that Evening and morning on earth
happen because of the relationship of what part of the earth faces the
sun at any given time.
No sun - no morning and evening
Darkness is NOT night - there is darkness in a cave during the day.
Light is not day - Teams play sporting events in lighted stadiums during
the night.
A god that knew everything would NOT get this wrong - but the HUMANS
that created the nonsense of the bible clearly DID.
THEISTS choose stupidity
Free Lunch
Mar 11, 2012, 12:08:52 PM3/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:11:39 -0700 (PDT), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
>ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
>scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe ....all by
>accident and without a shred of intended purpose ! That scenario
>is all about rejecting the personal theistic Creator at all costs
>because he is a fly in ones ointment to lifestyle choices...usually
>immoral . Atheism requires the person be disengenuous to himself
>and that a charade be maintained. I didnt have enough faith to
>maintain my atheism .
Please tell us why you repeat your lies about science so often. We know
you are lying. You know you are lying. You know you are misrepresenting
what scientists have discovered and you celebrate the lies you tell
about it. Do you really think your god needs you to tell lies on his
behalf?
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
>ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
>scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe ....all by
>accident and without a shred of intended purpose ! That scenario
>is all about rejecting the personal theistic Creator at all costs
>because he is a fly in ones ointment to lifestyle choices...usually
>immoral . Atheism requires the person be disengenuous to himself
>and that a charade be maintained. I didnt have enough faith to
>maintain my atheism .
you are lying. You know you are lying. You know you are misrepresenting
what scientists have discovered and you celebrate the lies you tell
about it. Do you really think your god needs you to tell lies on his
behalf?
ThomMadura
Mar 11, 2012, 1:18:33 PM3/11/12
to
On 3/11/2012 12:08 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:11:39 -0700 (PDT), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
> <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> ...
>
>
>> It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
>> ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
>> scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe ....all by
>> accident and without a shred of intended purpose !
No - it IT simply the acceptance of reality.
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:11:39 -0700 (PDT), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
> <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> ...
>
>
>> It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
>> ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
>> scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe ....all by
>> accident and without a shred of intended purpose !
WE already KNOW that the story of creation in the bible is not and never
could be true.
And we now can prove that all life forms have DNA from that original one
celled creature - so we ALL did indeed evolve from it.
That scenario
>> is all about rejecting the personal theistic Creator
at all costs
>> because he is a fly in ones ointment to lifestyle choices...usually
>> immoral .
THERE is no evidence that belief in a creator makes anyone moral or
ethical.
In fact - the countries with the HIGHEST crime rates - are those with
the most christians - and the countries with the LOWEST crime rates are
those with the most non-believers.
Murder rates are highest in the world among Fundamental christians as well.
Atheism requires the person be disengenuous to himself
>> and that a charade be maintained. I didnt have enough faith to
>> maintain my atheism .
>
> Please tell us why you repeat your lies about science so often. We know
> you are lying. You know you are lying. You know you are misrepresenting
> what scientists have discovered and you celebrate the lies you tell
> about it. Do you really think your god needs you to tell lies on his
> behalf?
in this case a SMALL group of cave dwellers and goat herders - who used
it to control the uneducated people to do their bidding.
While it was useful in that regard - it has no basis in reality - and as
other humans created their own religions - a competition ensued as to
which was the most powerful and best god. ANd so - they piled on more
and more claims - failing to realize that they created something that
cannot ALL be true at the same time - and that they also claimed things
based on their personal errant observations of the world as THEY saw it.
Over the centuries -no one was ALLOWED to question the religion lest
they be KILLED for heresy. SO - the catholic church murdered thousands -
for saying things that today we know are true. In 1600 - they burnt
Giordano Bruno at the stake - for saying that the earth was NOT the
center of the solar system - and that is actually orbited the sun. .
AS more and more of the claims of religion are identified as frauds -
religion MUST - in order to keep the money flowing - either depend on
the ingrained and trained delusions of a few people like Duke and Gladys
- and the "Ilbebauk" - or they must reSPIN their story to take into
account what we NOW know is real.
50 years ago - it was still possible for religion to attempt to
discredit evolution - because the proof was incomplete - although
completely compelling to scientists - while there is still NO proof of
instant creation. Even then - most of the theories of evolution -
including that of survival of the fittest - were already established
facts that only stupid people would deny.
Today -= the majority of religions have accepted evolution because it is
NO longer in question - DNA research using scanning electron microscopes
has established species evolution to be a fact.
However - that has caused a problem - because if you now ask most
theists - they do not actually believe the things their religions teach
anymore. Young theists are so - in name only - in order to prevent
family problems - but do not care much for the religion.
Vurgil
Mar 11, 2012, 6:12:32 PM3/11/12
to
In article
<823321f4-01af-489d...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
sanity much saner than the IDiocy of creationism.
<823321f4-01af-489d...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
> ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
> scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe ....all by
> accident and without a shred of intended purpose !
It is science based on objective physical evidence, which is a form of
> It isnt 'sanity' to give homage to a one celled pond scum protozoa for
> ultimately bringing us everything including a human brain touted by
> scientists as THE most complex thing in the universe ....all by
> accident and without a shred of intended purpose !
sanity much saner than the IDiocy of creationism.
Smiler
Mar 11, 2012, 7:48:44 PM3/11/12
to
"Ppl" has no vowels, so it cannot be an English word.
Smiler
Mar 11, 2012, 7:50:56 PM3/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:39:26 -0800, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-09 15:51, Smiler wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:30:26 +0000, Alex W. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:35:07 +0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>> >> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
>>>>>> homosexuality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>>>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>>>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>>>>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>>>>
>>>> I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
>>>> moles are found...
>>>
>>> Their molehills:
>>>
>>> http://wallpaperstock.net/three-pyramids_wallpapers_12277_1280x960_1.html
>>
>> Those giant moles were very sophisticated. See how neatly they stacked the
>> spoil from their runs! Almost like ancient humans would do. But still no
>> fossils...
>
> Is it too early to add "giant mole" as another possible contender for
> the title of "Mascot of Atheism?"
That post is already held by puke. :-)
> On 2012-Mar-09 15:51, Smiler wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:30:26 +0000, Alex W. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:35:07 +0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:55:59 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>> >> you atheists are a PITA; make mountains out of molehills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope that's a back-handed compliment and not a reference to male
>>>>>> homosexuality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I'm pretty sure that mountains didn't evolve from molehills, but,
>>>>>> in fairness, that's based on my logical assumptions about the size of
>>>>>> moles and that moles are the creators of molehills.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They might have, remember that before the fall everything was bigger.
>>>>> Mole hills have holes at the tops, maybe they are not all extinct volcanoes.
>>>>
>>>> I'll consider that hypothesis as soon as fossils of 1000ft tall giant
>>>> moles are found...
>>>
>>> Their molehills:
>>>
>>> http://wallpaperstock.net/three-pyramids_wallpapers_12277_1280x960_1.html
>>
>> Those giant moles were very sophisticated. See how neatly they stacked the
>> spoil from their runs! Almost like ancient humans would do. But still no
>> fossils...
>
> Is it too early to add "giant mole" as another possible contender for
> the title of "Mascot of Atheism?"
felix_unger
Mar 12, 2012, 1:54:09 AM3/12/12
to
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 18, 2012, 1:28:48 PM3/18/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full."
-- Henry Kissinger
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 18, 2012, 1:27:33 PM3/18/12
to
>> which technically means that it's not a word.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There is no such thing as a Former KGB Man."
-- Vladimir Putin
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 18, 2012, 1:30:07 PM3/18/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of
capitalism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?"
-- Fidel Castro
felix_unger
Mar 18, 2012, 8:41:09 PM3/18/12
to
On 19-March-2012 4:28 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
do I have to spell it out for you? I was always talking about the word
"Acknostisism". so no change dummy. try treading the thread again, then
apologise, if you're goddess enough.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"Acknostisism". so no change dummy. try treading the thread again, then
apologise, if you're goddess enough.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
Smiler
Mar 18, 2012, 8:56:35 PM3/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:30:07 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
Although it would be difficult to tell the difference between a giant mole
and puke, except that the mole would be far more intelligent, puke has the
outstanding ability to turn anyone away from religion*. Hence his
promotion to a.a. mascot.
*On the basis of: "_This_ is what religion does to your mind!"
and puke, except that the mole would be far more intelligent, puke has the
outstanding ability to turn anyone away from religion*. Hence his
promotion to a.a. mascot.
*On the basis of: "_This_ is what religion does to your mind!"
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 18, 2012, 10:46:29 PM3/18/12
to
because in looking back on the thread I can see that you engaged the
topic drift of the "ppl." abbreviation with what appears to be an ad
hominem attack against Barry O'Grady (ad hominem attacks don't help your
position, by the way), therefore your claim that you were always
discussing the apparent neologism "Acknostisism" is incorrect.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or
how, but what is extraordinarily important is this; who will count the
votes, and how."
-- Joseph Stalin (on democracy)
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 18, 2012, 10:47:52 PM3/18/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"A good journalist is not the one that writes what people say, but the
one that writes what he is supposed to write."
-- Todor Zhivkov
felix_unger
Mar 19, 2012, 12:46:45 AM3/19/12
to
On 19-March-2012 1:46 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
my claim is not incorrect, bird brain. reading comprehension is another
of your many failings I note. perhaps your lack of existence is impeding
your (non-existent?) mental faculities. ??
>>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist
and agnostic
>> It is no more a word than is ppl.
> It is you moron
the subject of the discussion was ALWAYS the word 'Acknostisism'
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
“if there was no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God at all. How could they?”
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
of your many failings I note. perhaps your lack of existence is impeding
your (non-existent?) mental faculities. ??
>>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist
and agnostic
>> It is no more a word than is ppl.
> It is you moron
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
The atheists moral dilemma .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 19, 2012, 1:44:09 AM3/19/12
to
reasonable guess that my mental faculties are non-existent (I'm not
denying nor confirming if this is the case), and that fact alone
destroys any notion of integrity that anyone might have granted you.
> >>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>
> >>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist
> and agnostic
>
> >> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>
> > It is you moron
>
> the subject of the discussion was ALWAYS the word 'Acknostisism'
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Can I help it if I like cite-seeing?"
-- Alex W. (March 12, 2012)
felix_unger
Mar 19, 2012, 2:12:15 AM3/19/12
to
On 19-March-2012 4:44 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
my apologies. I may have been a bit generous granting you the mental
faculities equivalant to that of avian creatures. hopefully you are not
too offended, as I graciously concede that you are brainless!
>
>> >>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>
>> >>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist
>> and agnostic
>>
>> >> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>>
>> > It is you moron
>>
>> the subject of the discussion was ALWAYS the word 'Acknostisism'
>
> Then why did the discussion drift to the "ppl." abbreviation?
>
because someone took it there by misreading the remarks and failing to
understand basic English, specifically rules of grammar
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
The atheists moral dilemma .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
�It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history�
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
�if there was no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God at all. How could they?�
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rub�iy�t of Omar Khayy�m
faculities equivalant to that of avian creatures. hopefully you are not
too offended, as I graciously concede that you are brainless!
>
>> >>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>
>> >>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist
>> and agnostic
>>
>> >> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>>
>> > It is you moron
>>
>> the subject of the discussion was ALWAYS the word 'Acknostisism'
>
> Then why did the discussion drift to the "ppl." abbreviation?
>
understand basic English, specifically rules of grammar
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
The atheists moral dilemma .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rub�iy�t of Omar Khayy�m
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 20, 2012, 9:32:03 PM3/20/12
to
attacks obviously don't help your position.
>>> >>>> Neither Google not Websters recognises a word 'Acknostisism'
>>>
>>> >>> It's a term used for those who describe themselves as both atheist
>>> and agnostic
>>>
>>> >> It is no more a word than is ppl.
>>>
>>> > It is you moron
>>>
>>> the subject of the discussion was ALWAYS the word 'Acknostisism'
>>
>> Then why did the discussion drift to the "ppl." abbreviation?
>
> because someone took it there by misreading the remarks and failing to
> understand basic English, specifically rules of grammar
"rules of grammar" are something you have trouble with too. Here are
some of the more obvious errors with your English writing:
* sentences are supposed to begin with a capital letter
* sentences are supposed to be terminated properly (e.g., by a period)
* apostrophes are not quotation marks (although an exception is made
where they can be used as substitutes within quoted text)
* the correct way to end a sentence as a question is with a single
interrogation mark and not with ". ??"
* the ad hominemistic phrase "bird-brain" is usually hyphenated
* multiple sentences within the same paragraph are supposed to be
delimited by two spaces (you routinely use only one space)
* you misspelled "apologize" as "apologise"
* you misspelled "equivalent" as "equivalant"
* you misspelled "faculties" as "faculities"
* ending a sentence that attempts to convey "graciously conceding"
something with an exclamation point sabotages the intent of the meaning
In other words...
"Pot! Kettle! Black!"
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Dad! Tom Cruise won't come out of my closet!"
-- Stan Marsh
ala
Mar 20, 2012, 9:37:47 PM3/20/12
to
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com>
wrote in message news:dcaar.8057$GV1....@newsfe12.iad...
>
> The basic punctuation errors that you regularly exhibit shows that "rules
> of grammar" are something you have trouble with too. Here are some of the
> more obvious errors with your English writing:
>
> * sentences are supposed to begin with a capital letter
> * sentences are supposed to be terminated properly (e.g., by a period)
> * apostrophes are not quotation marks (although an exception is made where
> they can be used as substitutes within quoted text)
> * the correct way to end a sentence as a question is with a single
> interrogation mark and not with ". ??"
> * the ad hominemistic phrase "bird-brain" is usually hyphenated
> * multiple sentences within the same paragraph are supposed to be
> delimited by two spaces (you routinely use only one space)
> * you misspelled "apologize" as "apologise"
> * you misspelled "equivalent" as "equivalant"
> * you misspelled "faculties" as "faculities"
> * ending a sentence that attempts to convey "graciously conceding"
> something with an exclamation point sabotages the intent of the meaning
>
> In other words...
>
> "Pot! Kettle! Black!"
>
felix_unger
Mar 20, 2012, 9:57:56 PM3/20/12
to
Oooohh! Goody! I'm famous! I've been elevated to heading status!..
On 21-March-2012 12:32 PM, Findem Two-beers, the non-existent atheist
thinking that the word being discussed was 'ppl', not 'acknostisism',
and consequently commenting inappropriately, and your pathetic attempts
to distract from that, and your complete failure to admit your error,
due no doubt to pride.
> Here are some of the more obvious errors with your English writing:
>
> * sentences are supposed to begin with a capital letter
> * sentences are supposed to be terminated properly (e.g., by a period)
> * apostrophes are not quotation marks (although an exception is made
> where they can be used as substitutes within quoted text)
> * the correct way to end a sentence as a question is with a single
> interrogation mark and not with ". ??"
> * the ad hominemistic phrase "bird-brain" is usually hyphenated
formatted
> * multiple sentences within the same paragraph are supposed to be
> delimited by two spaces (you routinely use only one space)
> * you misspelled "apologize" as "apologise"
> * you misspelled "equivalent" as "equivalant"
> * you misspelled "faculties" as "faculities"
> * ending a sentence that attempts to convey "graciously conceding"
> something with an exclamation point sabotages the intent of the meaning
>
> In other words...
>
> "Pot! Kettle! Black!"
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
The atheists moral dilemma .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Mar 24, 2012, 11:22:44 PM3/24/12
to
basic English" into the topic stream, therefore the rest of your
conclusion is not applicable.
>> Here are some of the more obvious errors with your English writing:
>>
>> * sentences are supposed to begin with a capital letter
>
> I'm on a mission to change English writing :)
>> * sentences are supposed to be terminated properly (e.g., by a period)
>
> see above
>
>> * apostrophes are not quotation marks (although an exception is made
>> where they can be used as substitutes within quoted text)
>
> see above, above
>
>> * the correct way to end a sentence as a question is with a single
>> interrogation mark and not with ". ??"
>
> that's for emphasis. and see above, above, above
your attempt at emphasis wasn't as successful as you intended.
>> * the ad hominemistic phrase "bird-brain" is usually hyphenated
>
> duly noted. further references to your mental prowess shall be properly
> formatted
>> * multiple sentences within the same paragraph are supposed to be
>> delimited by two spaces (you routinely use only one space)
>
> not in this hemisphere
>> * you misspelled "apologize" as "apologise"
>
> I'm Australian bird-brain. we use British English here
I also don't see any reason to disagree with you.
>> * you misspelled "equivalent" as "equivalant"
>> * you misspelled "faculties" as "faculities"
>
> forgot the spell chucker, didn't I..
>> * ending a sentence that attempts to convey "graciously conceding"
>> something with an exclamation point sabotages the intent of the meaning
>
> or else conveys the correct meaning.. hehe
>> In other words...
>>
>> "Pot! Kettle! Black!"
>
> I use an electric jug. we're civilized here.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."
-- Carl Sagan
Theo Bekkers
Mar 26, 2012, 9:26:41 PM3/26/12
to
"felix_unger" wrote in message
news:9rvijq...@mid.individual.net...
> On 10-March-2012 5:16 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 7:17 am, "Theo Bekkers"<theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>>> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the
>>> rear.
>> There is no fence-sitting in responsible agnosticism, just rational
>> assessment of the evidence.
>
>> Your quote betrays a political mindset; Apparently what counts for
>> you is not evidence, but zeal for the cause in which you believe.
ROTFL
> all correct!
I keep asking you for evidence and you continue to not supply it Pete.
Why is that? Can't find it?
Theo
news:9rvijq...@mid.individual.net...
> On 10-March-2012 5:16 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 7:17 am, "Theo Bekkers"<theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>>> If you sit on a fence long enough you will get a picket up the
>>> rear.
>> There is no fence-sitting in responsible agnosticism, just rational
>> assessment of the evidence.
>
>> Your quote betrays a political mindset; Apparently what counts for
>> you is not evidence, but zeal for the cause in which you believe.
ROTFL
> all correct!
I keep asking you for evidence and you continue to not supply it Pete.
Why is that? Can't find it?
Theo
felix_unger
Mar 26, 2012, 9:39:45 PM3/26/12
to
all these unreplied to supposed requests quoted here
>
> Why is that? Can't find it?
me? is he too smart for you?
>
> Theo
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
“My favourite Bible verse .. 1 Timothy 5:23”
“We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it”
ThomMadura
Mar 26, 2012, 9:47:37 PM3/26/12
to
they do not have any
felix_unger
Mar 27, 2012, 12:49:21 AM3/27/12
to
Theo Bekkers
Mar 27, 2012, 6:20:28 AM3/27/12
to
"felix_unger" wrote
the posts but always read your and Gladys' posts and a few others that
look interesting. I don't respond or get involved as often as I did
some years ago.
>> Why is that? Can't find it?
> what evidence do you want of what? and why not ask the OP rather
> than me? is he too smart for you?
You think I'm asking you because I think you are dumber than the OP?
You have said several times that there is credible evidence for the
god of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic religions. What is it? I've never
seen any. Give me a few examples.
Theo
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> I keep asking you for evidence and you continue to not supply it
>> Pete.
> oh really? you hardly ever post anything, so I will be pleased to
> see all these unreplied to supposed requests quoted here
I only turn on my computer every few days. I generally skim through
>> I keep asking you for evidence and you continue to not supply it
>> Pete.
> oh really? you hardly ever post anything, so I will be pleased to
> see all these unreplied to supposed requests quoted here
the posts but always read your and Gladys' posts and a few others that
look interesting. I don't respond or get involved as often as I did
some years ago.
>> Why is that? Can't find it?
> what evidence do you want of what? and why not ask the OP rather
> than me? is he too smart for you?
You have said several times that there is credible evidence for the
god of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic religions. What is it? I've never
seen any. Give me a few examples.
Theo
felix_unger
Mar 27, 2012, 7:16:36 AM3/27/12
to
On 27-March-2012 9:20 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "felix_unger" wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> I keep asking you for evidence and you continue to not supply it
>>> Pete.
>> oh really? you hardly ever post anything, so I will be pleased to
>> see all these unreplied to supposed requests quoted here
> I only turn on my computer every few days. I generally skim through
> the posts but always read your and Gladys' posts and a few others that
> look interesting.
you do? I feel honoured.. :) but you should be aware that I don't read
> "felix_unger" wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> I keep asking you for evidence and you continue to not supply it
>>> Pete.
>> oh really? you hardly ever post anything, so I will be pleased to
>> see all these unreplied to supposed requests quoted here
> I only turn on my computer every few days. I generally skim through
> the posts but always read your and Gladys' posts and a few others that
> look interesting.
ARC (except occasionally) so anything of mine you see there is likely to
be x-posted
> I don't respond or get involved as often as I did some years ago.
>
>>> Why is that? Can't find it?
>> what evidence do you want of what? and why not ask the OP rather
>> than me? is he too smart for you?
> You think I'm asking you because I think you are dumber than the OP?
at the University of South Carolina, but primarily because it was his
comments you were ROTFLing at
>
> You have said several times that there is credible evidence for the
> god of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic religions. What is it? I've never
> seen any. Give me a few examples.
world celebrates the birth of Christ, not only the Aramaic religions but
the Oriental ones as well. then there is the sheer numbers of ppl who
find meaning in religion- for whom it has value- and that's not only the
adherents. most ppl will admit to some sort of faith, and even a
personal spiritual strength derived from it. then there is testimonial
evidence, such as given in the bible, and also by believers, to
spiritual experiences or 'awakenings', and associated with that, a life
force or life changing power, enabling them to 'turn their lives around'
- druggies, alcoholics, etc., as of course some biblical are said to
have, notably St. Paul. a minister once told me many years ago, that he
said to those who scoffed at his faith, "Maybe Jesus didn't turn water
into wine, but he sure can turn beer into blankets". and then as was
posted recently, and I quote in my signature, "If there were no evidence
of God at all, then no one would believe in God. How could they?” people
don't worship and practice a religion for no reason- if there is nothing
to it, and they don't get anything out of it, why would they do it?
felix_unger
Mar 27, 2012, 7:30:02 AM3/27/12
to
On 25-March-2012 2:22 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
and you still haven't acknowledged your error and likely never will. but
I suppose being a goddess you think conceding error to mere mortals
beneath your dignity
>
>>> Here are some of the more obvious errors with your English writing:
>>>
>>> * sentences are supposed to begin with a capital letter
>>
>> I'm on a mission to change English writing :)
>
> Does this mean that you're trying to do away with the rules?
language evolves, and does so by the way ppl use it, and new words that
are introduced, as well as new or different meanings given to existing words
>
>>> * sentences are supposed to be terminated properly (e.g., by a period)
>>
>> see above
>>
>>> * apostrophes are not quotation marks (although an exception is made
>>> where they can be used as substitutes within quoted text)
>>
>> see above, above
>>
>>> * the correct way to end a sentence as a question is with a single
>>> interrogation mark and not with ". ??"
>>
>> that's for emphasis. and see above, above, above
>
> It actually comes across as if something is missing, which means that
> your attempt at emphasis wasn't as successful as you intended.
hmmmmm..
>
>>> * the ad hominemistic phrase "bird-brain" is usually hyphenated
>>
>> duly noted. further references to your mental prowess shall be properly
>> formatted
>
> What claim to my own mental prowess do you believe I've made?
that you don't have any
>
>>> * multiple sentences within the same paragraph are supposed to be
>>> delimited by two spaces (you routinely use only one space)
>>
>> not in this hemisphere
>
> Are you referring to your left hemisphere or your right hemisphere?
>
>>> * you misspelled "apologize" as "apologise"
>>
>> I'm Australian bird-brain. we use British English here
>
> Australian bird-brain? I don't see how that could be advantageous,
> but I also don't see any reason to disagree with you.
cute!
>
>>> * you misspelled "equivalent" as "equivalant"
>>> * you misspelled "faculties" as "faculities"
>>
>> forgot the spell chucker, didn't I..
>
> Did you forget to include an interrogation mark? Your grammar is
> atrocious.
my gramma is dead
>
>>> * ending a sentence that attempts to convey "graciously conceding"
>>> something with an exclamation point sabotages the intent of the meaning
>>
>> or else conveys the correct meaning.. hehe
>
> How?
>
if you can't figure it out, don't worry about it
>>> In other words...
>>>
>>> "Pot! Kettle! Black!"
>>
>> I use an electric jug. we're civilized here.
>
> Oh, so you're into automation on this point?
>
what point it that? your nose? sorry.. your non-existent nose
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
I suppose being a goddess you think conceding error to mere mortals
beneath your dignity
>
>>> Here are some of the more obvious errors with your English writing:
>>>
>>> * sentences are supposed to begin with a capital letter
>>
>> I'm on a mission to change English writing :)
>
> Does this mean that you're trying to do away with the rules?
are introduced, as well as new or different meanings given to existing words
>
>>> * sentences are supposed to be terminated properly (e.g., by a period)
>>
>> see above
>>
>>> * apostrophes are not quotation marks (although an exception is made
>>> where they can be used as substitutes within quoted text)
>>
>> see above, above
>>
>>> * the correct way to end a sentence as a question is with a single
>>> interrogation mark and not with ". ??"
>>
>> that's for emphasis. and see above, above, above
>
> It actually comes across as if something is missing, which means that
> your attempt at emphasis wasn't as successful as you intended.
>
>>> * the ad hominemistic phrase "bird-brain" is usually hyphenated
>>
>> duly noted. further references to your mental prowess shall be properly
>> formatted
>
> What claim to my own mental prowess do you believe I've made?
>
>>> * multiple sentences within the same paragraph are supposed to be
>>> delimited by two spaces (you routinely use only one space)
>>
>> not in this hemisphere
>
> Are you referring to your left hemisphere or your right hemisphere?
>
>>> * you misspelled "apologize" as "apologise"
>>
>> I'm Australian bird-brain. we use British English here
>
> Australian bird-brain? I don't see how that could be advantageous,
> but I also don't see any reason to disagree with you.
>
>>> * you misspelled "equivalent" as "equivalant"
>>> * you misspelled "faculties" as "faculities"
>>
>> forgot the spell chucker, didn't I..
>
> Did you forget to include an interrogation mark? Your grammar is
> atrocious.
>
>>> * ending a sentence that attempts to convey "graciously conceding"
>>> something with an exclamation point sabotages the intent of the meaning
>>
>> or else conveys the correct meaning.. hehe
>
> How?
>
>>> In other words...
>>>
>>> "Pot! Kettle! Black!"
>>
>> I use an electric jug. we're civilized here.
>
> Oh, so you're into automation on this point?
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”
The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
“Atheists piss on the beliefs of others, so why would anyone cast pearls before atheist swine?”
"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
“If there were no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God. How could they?”
“My favourite Bible verse .. 1 Timothy 5:23”
“We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it”
“My favourite Bible verse .. 1 Timothy 5:23”
“We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it”
duke
Mar 27, 2012, 8:32:05 AM3/27/12
to
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
ThomMadura
Mar 27, 2012, 8:44:42 AM3/27/12
to
THAT is proof that the religion exists
IT provides NO proof of the existence of the god though.
For centuries - people under Roman rule celebrated the PAGAN ROman
holidays - and that was NO proof of the existence of those gods either
At one time EGypt was the dominant country of the world - and still no
proof of those gods either - except that as they claimed their Pharaohs
to BE gods - and we have PROOF of their existence -their religion at
least has SOME provable basis. Some of their "gods" actually lived - we
have their mummies.
WE also have "mummies" of a few Central American ruler/gods as well
THe fact is - the whole world does NOT celibate the birth of the christ
- it is a made up Holiday based on the Roman Pagan Saturnalia - has no
proven connection to the any claimed day of the "birth" day of the
christ (it being a fairy tale - there is NO birth to celebrate)
IN asia - the predominant country does not celebrate it - they celebrate
CHINESE NEW YEAR. In INDIA - - only about 2% of their population does -
although as a former UK country - it is a state holiday. ONE would
hardly know if you were there.
Around the world - December 25th is far more known for its celebration
of SANTA CLAUS - which includes Mainland China -and Taiwan however
December 25th is Constitution day In Taiwan
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages