God the Designer: Incompetent, Sadistic, And Beaten Again by Scientists
Budikka666
would rip him for being over the top and thoroughly unbelievable (not
that critics are very clued-in). But if we put this same god at the
head of the big three monotheistic religions, suddenly we're supposed
to not only respect, but also to worship this clown?
_Discover_ magazine has a very revealing story here:
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/nov/14-have-we-entered-the-stem-cell-era
about a girl who had a stroke at age six because she has sickle-cell
disease:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
Paizley had to have blood transfusions every three weeks to keep her
body supplied with regular red cells - as opposed to the diseased ones
her supposedly divinely-designed body manufactured - in order to avoid
the horrors which such cells can perpetrate upon her body. Her life
expectancy was low.
It seems that those who postulate a creator god are stuck because they
can neither bring themselves to accept the most rational option - that
there is no god - nor can they continue with the outright lie that
this god is a good god when he perpetrates evil on people or allows
evil to befall people and lifts not a single divine finger to help.
Failing in their attempts to justify their god, they're forced to try
and "rationalize" his behavior by claiming that there is some test or
some character-building going on here, or that Paizley brought this
disease upon herself because she's fundamentally evil herself.
Let's look at that option, shall we? Paizley is evil and therefore
she "earned" this disease? How does that work exactly, given that
Paizley wasn't even born when she contracted the disease because the
disease was part and parcel of her genome? Did one of her chromosomes
sin and so *it* was punished with a defective gene? Seriously, do
theists *honestly* expect us to buy this juvenile horseshit?
So if Paizley earned her disease because of sin, how come this god
allowed the physicians to effectively cure it using sound and tested
scientific principles? Is Paizley not a sinner any more? Did she pay
the requisite price and so god allowed her to be cured? If she had
paid the price, then how come she wasn't miraculously cured?
The *fact* is that theists are completely at a loss to explain things
like this. They always have been and they always will be!
In some parts of the world, sickle-cell disease conveys an
evolutionary advantage because it offers some protection against
malaria. Theists have to admit to one of two options here, it would
seem. They either have to admit that their god is a sadist, in that
the only escape from malaria is a potentially crippling disease, or
they have to admit that their god is incompetent because the only cure
he could create for malaria is a potentially crippling disease!
There is a third option, of course, that even creationists will
eventually have to concede as evidence continues to rise that there is
no intelligent involvement - there is no designer god; it's simply
undirected evolution of which Paizley is a rather tragic victim.
But the evil created by this fictional god that the fundies and
creationists postulate (without a shred of scientific or objective
support), as the above article explains, is slowly being defeated by
science. Paizley got a stem cell transplant - the kind of cell George
Bush tried to cripple study of; the same kind of cell Sarah Palin has
demonstrated fundamental stupidity over - and now she's effectively
cured of her disease and can lead a normal life - as normal as any
teenager leads, that is!
And none of it was due to any god.
Budikka
ilbe...@gmail.com
> If god were the villain in some comedic action adventure, the critics
> would rip him for being over the top and thoroughly unbelievable (not
> that critics are very clued-in). But if we put this same god at the
> head of the big three monotheistic religions, suddenly we're supposed
> to not only respect, but also to worship this clown?
>
Your willful misconceptions of our wonderful Creator wont get you out
of a personal meeting with him and your knee bowing in rightful
humility. Its not worth the brief life now, of living however you
like for maximum pleasure.
huge
Oh, HO! It's the old phony threats!
That's what Xters are all about. Tricks of the cheap
used car salesman.
> Its not worth the brief life now, of living however you like for maximum
> pleasure.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Jan 1, 8:58ïŋ―am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> If god were the villain in some comedic action adventure, the critics
>> would rip him for being over the top and thoroughly unbelievable (not
>> that critics are very clued-in). ïŋ―But if we put this same god at the
>> head of the big three monotheistic religions, suddenly we're supposed
>> to not only respect, but also to worship this clown?
>>
>> _Discover_ magazine has a very revealing story here:http://discovermagazine.com/2009/nov/14-have-we-entered-the-stem-cell...
>> about a girl who had a stroke at age six because she has sickle-cell
>> disease:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
>>
>> Paizley had to have blood transfusions every three weeks to keep her
>> body supplied with regular red cells - as opposed to the diseased ones
>> her supposedly divinely-designed body manufactured - in order to avoid
>> the horrors which such cells can perpetrate upon her body. ïŋ― Her life
>> expectancy was low.
>>
>> It seems that those who postulate a creator god are stuck because they
>> can neither bring themselves to accept the most rational option - that
>> there is no god - nor can they continue with the outright lie that
>> this god is a good god when he perpetrates evil on people or allows
>> evil to befall people and lifts not a single divine finger to help.
>>
>> Failing in their attempts to justify their god, they're forced to try
>> and "rationalize" his behavior by claiming that there is some test or
>> some character-building going on here, or that Paizley brought this
>> disease upon herself because she's fundamentally evil herself.
>>
>> Let's look at that option, shall we? ïŋ―Paizley is evil and therefore
>> she "earned" this disease? ïŋ―How does that work exactly, given that
>> Paizley wasn't even born when she contracted the disease because the
>> disease was part and parcel of her genome? ïŋ―Did one of her chromosomes
>> sin and so *it* was punished with a defective gene? ïŋ―Seriously, do
>> theists *honestly* expect us to buy this juvenile horseshit?
>>
>> So if Paizley earned her disease because of sin, how come this god
>> allowed the physicians to effectively cure it using sound and tested
>> scientific principles? ïŋ―Is Paizley not a sinner any more? ïŋ―Did she pay
>> the requisite price and so god allowed her to be cured? ïŋ―If she had
>> paid the price, then how come she wasn't miraculously cured?
>>
>> The *fact* is that theists are completely at a loss to explain things
>> like this. ïŋ―They always have been and they always will be!
>>
>> In some parts of the world, sickle-cell disease conveys an
>> evolutionary advantage because it offers some protection against
>> malaria. ïŋ―Theists have to admit to one of two options here, it would
>> seem. ïŋ―They either have to admit that their god is a sadist, in that
>> the only escape from malaria is a potentially crippling disease, or
>> they have to admit that their god is incompetent because the only cure
>> he could create for malaria is a potentially crippling disease!
>>
>> There is a third option, of course, that even creationists will
>> eventually have to concede as evidence continues to rise that there is
>> no intelligent involvement - there is no designer god; it's simply
>> undirected evolution of which Paizley is a rather tragic victim.
>>
>> But the evil created by this fictional god that the fundies and
>> creationists postulate (without a shred of scientific or objective
>> support), as the above article explains, is slowly being defeated by
>> science. ïŋ―Paizley got a stem cell transplant - the kind of cell George
>> Bush tried to cripple study of; the same kind of cell Sarah Palin has
>> demonstrated fundamental stupidity over - and now she's effectively
>> cured of her disease and can lead a normal life - as normal as any
>> teenager leads, that is!
>>
>> And none of it was due to any god.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Your willful misconceptions of our wonderful Creator wont get you out
>of a personal meeting with him and your knee bowing in rightful
>humility. Its not worth the brief life now, of living however you
>like for maximum pleasure.
Your misrepresentations of reality will not change reality.
Have a happy new year. I hope you are allowed to learn something this
year.
Devils Advocaat
So how about you explain why this little girl has such a dreadful
disease that ties in with your concept of what the Biblical God is all
about?
huge
Sometimes I think IBe.. and Duke are impersonators trying to
discredit Christianity, but then
I occasionally get thrown into a situation
where I have to interact with people from all walks (jury duty)
and realize that there are so many insane people out there that
if they were all in institutions, all of those of us who were left
would be full time caretakers.
duane
WTF? Clown boy scout
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
The religious loonies we get here are mentally ill. They suffer from
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Religion seems to bring it out.
They are impossible to deal with.
John Locke
>On Jan 1, 8:58ïŋ―am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> If god were the villain in some comedic action adventure, the critics
>> would rip him for being over the top and thoroughly unbelievable (not
>> that critics are very clued-in). ïŋ―But if we put this same god at the
>> head of the big three monotheistic religions, suddenly we're supposed
>> to not only respect, but also to worship this clown?
>>
>> _Discover_ magazine has a very revealing story here:http://discovermagazine.com/2009/nov/14-have-we-entered-the-stem-cell...
>> about a girl who had a stroke at age six because she has sickle-cell
>> disease:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
>>
>> Paizley had to have blood transfusions every three weeks to keep her
>> body supplied with regular red cells - as opposed to the diseased ones
>> her supposedly divinely-designed body manufactured - in order to avoid
>> the horrors which such cells can perpetrate upon her body. ïŋ― Her life
>> expectancy was low.
>>
>> It seems that those who postulate a creator god are stuck because they
>> can neither bring themselves to accept the most rational option - that
>> there is no god - nor can they continue with the outright lie that
>> this god is a good god when he perpetrates evil on people or allows
>> evil to befall people and lifts not a single divine finger to help.
>>
>> Failing in their attempts to justify their god, they're forced to try
>> and "rationalize" his behavior by claiming that there is some test or
>> some character-building going on here, or that Paizley brought this
>> disease upon herself because she's fundamentally evil herself.
>>
>> Let's look at that option, shall we? ïŋ―Paizley is evil and therefore
>> she "earned" this disease? ïŋ―How does that work exactly, given that
>> Paizley wasn't even born when she contracted the disease because the
>> disease was part and parcel of her genome? ïŋ―Did one of her chromosomes
>> sin and so *it* was punished with a defective gene? ïŋ―Seriously, do
>> theists *honestly* expect us to buy this juvenile horseshit?
>>
>> So if Paizley earned her disease because of sin, how come this god
>> allowed the physicians to effectively cure it using sound and tested
>> scientific principles? ïŋ―Is Paizley not a sinner any more? ïŋ―Did she pay
>> the requisite price and so god allowed her to be cured? ïŋ―If she had
>> paid the price, then how come she wasn't miraculously cured?
>>
>> The *fact* is that theists are completely at a loss to explain things
>> like this. ïŋ―They always have been and they always will be!
>>
>> In some parts of the world, sickle-cell disease conveys an
>> evolutionary advantage because it offers some protection against
>> malaria. ïŋ―Theists have to admit to one of two options here, it would
>> seem. ïŋ―They either have to admit that their god is a sadist, in that
>> the only escape from malaria is a potentially crippling disease, or
>> they have to admit that their god is incompetent because the only cure
>> he could create for malaria is a potentially crippling disease!
>>
>> There is a third option, of course, that even creationists will
>> eventually have to concede as evidence continues to rise that there is
>> no intelligent involvement - there is no designer god; it's simply
>> undirected evolution of which Paizley is a rather tragic victim.
>>
>> But the evil created by this fictional god that the fundies and
>> creationists postulate (without a shred of scientific or objective
>> support), as the above article explains, is slowly being defeated by
>> science. ïŋ―Paizley got a stem cell transplant - the kind of cell George
>> Bush tried to cripple study of; the same kind of cell Sarah Palin has
>> demonstrated fundamental stupidity over - and now she's effectively
>> cured of her disease and can lead a normal life - as normal as any
>> teenager leads, that is!
>>
>> And none of it was due to any god.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Your willful misconceptions of our wonderful Creator wont get you out
>of a personal meeting with him and your knee bowing in rightful
>humility. Its not worth the brief life now, of living however you
>like for maximum pleasure.
>
You're right. Life on earth is brief. And it's not worth wasting even
one minute of it, groveling to some imaginary monster in the sky.
Ken
posted this BS and then ran away..as usual:
However, THIS one is Creationists can certainly prove an intelligent
Designer/Creator for the Cosmos
We're STILL waiting for your "proof", Dimwit
Syd M.
No.
If this 'god' of yours exists, it doesn't deserve worship... It
deserve a quick kick in the groin.
PDW
Budikka666
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story. End of You.
Budikka
Ken
And STILL none of his promised "proof" of his imaginary "creator"
Saz Dimwit Dave: "However, THIS one is Creationists can certainly
tirebiter
Oh, the "hollow threat" aka "you'll be sorry when you're dead" ploy.
Good thing the god that only exists in your imagination can't possibly
do anything to anyone in the real world, unless it makes you snap and
go on a terror spree.
---
a.a. #2273
duke
wrote:
Hey, dud, don't you ever get embarrassed at thinking everybody runs away from
you when your challenges are really so simple to correct.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Ken
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hey, dud, don't you ever get embarrassed at thinking everybody runs away from
> you when your challenges are really so simple to correct.
>
This comment from Puke, a in-bred, beer-swilling, home-skooled,
rednecked halfwit who isn't even properly potty trained
Tim Miller
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey, dud, don't you ever get embarrassed at thinking everybody runs away from
> you when your challenges are really so simple to correct.
>
Hey dud, you ever figured out how a ball on a string works??
LOL!!
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey, dud, don't you ever get embarrassed at thinking everybody runs away from
> you when your challenges are really so simple to correct.
Though Puke is so simple that he has yet to manage to "correct" any of
them.
Ken
wrote:
> Hey dud, you ever figured out how a ball on a string works??
>
> LOL!!
I doubt if Puke even knows how a tampon works, let alone something as
technical as a ball on a string
livvy
> If god were the villain in some comedic action adventure, the critics
> would rip him for being over the top and thoroughly unbelievable (not
> that critics are very clued-in). But if we put this same god at the
> head of the big three monotheistic religions, suddenly we're supposed
> to not only respect, but also to worship this clown?
>
You've gotten some really bad information and decided you were in.
Nothing to do with anyone else. And your attempt at logic is lame,
you should be really embarrassed. And "suddenly we're supposed to not
only respect, but also to worship this clown? " Nope, you don't have
to do a thing.
It's called life. Children die, parents, pets....that's what's
supposed to happen. If this child's parents feel there was something
mis-handled in her treatment, then they should pursue for answers, if
you want to join with them, then you should. We all have matters in
which we've taken a stand, and why not? Got nuthin to do with God.
I have a huge family, we've had heart-ripping, gut-wrenching loss,
but we're not all twisted up in knots, we're hearty crusaders, trying
to do good things in their names. Get your head out of your ass and
find something to do! Blame's easy
livvy
" that there are so many insane people out there " Really? Perhaps
the other 11 think you're insane. And you obtained your degree in
Psychiatry where? It's alway everyone else, eh? Ain't it a bitch.
Father Haskell
>
> Your willful misconceptions of our wonderful Creator
Have they got YOU trained to kiss ass.
Budikka666
I'm already sorry when I'm alive that I have to share a planet with
such despicable excuses for human beings!
Why on Earth these lowlifes should imagine for a split second that I'd
want to spend eternity with them (even if there were such a
possibility) is utterly beyond me. All it does is underscore how
fundamentally flawed their "logic" is that they can make such
irrational and untenable connections.
Then they want us to take them seriously? LoL!
Budikka
Budikka666
Are you claiming that this god *didn't* create anything? If so ,
we're on the same side because I see no objective or scientific
evidence for a creation either, and the creationists cannot offer a
shred of it.
But you failed to point out what the bad information was and support
your conclusion. if you want me to take you seriously, then you'll
need to do far better than that.
> Nothing to do with anyone else. And your attempt at logic is lame,
How so? It's so very easy to make these statements and so very hard
to support them isn't it, Livvy? Please support your claims;
otherwise I'll have to write you off as another brainless godbot.
won't I? And believe me, you don't want me to put you in that
category.
> you should be really embarrassed.
For pointing out how illogical and stupid the creationists and fundies
are? On the contrary. I should be embarrassed had I not the
conviction to do otherwise.
> And "suddenly we're supposed to not
> only respect, but also to worship this clown? " Nope, you don't have
> to do a thing.
Yes I do. I have to point out how ridiculous is the position of the
fundies and creationists. Otherwise I'd be letting them get away with
lying. You think allowing a lie to stand is somehow honorable?
> It's called life. Children die, parents, pets....that's what's
> supposed to happen.
No one is disputing that. The difference is that the creationists and
fundies offer an explanation for this which they cannot support. I
offer an explanation which I can support. Do you see the difference?
> If this child's parents feel there was something
> mis-handled in her treatment, then they should pursue for answers,
Their teenage daughter is doing fine. They have medical science on
their side. They do not need any help from me. Their daughter is
doing fine not because any god helped - no god did - but because
medical science helped. Can you grasp it now?
> if
> you want to join with them, then you should.
Their child is their business. Pointing out the vacuity of religion
is mine.
> We all have matters in
> which we've taken a stand, and why not? Got nuthin to do with God.
Exactly my point. I'm so glad we're in agreement on this.
> I have a huge family, we've had heart-ripping, gut-wrenching loss,
> but we're not all twisted up in knots, we're hearty crusaders, trying
> to do good things in their names. Get your head out of your ass and
> find something to do! Blame's easy
I did find something to do. I posted a thread in Usenet about how
pathetic and useless the Christian god is. Then you posted a response
which consists of nothing but whining and you failed to support an
iota of it. Which of us, do you suppose, has achieved more?
Budikka
Budikka666
> Devils Advocaat :
>
> Sometimes I think IBe.. and Duke are impersonators trying to
> discredit Christianity
They're not impersonators, they're for real and they're not trying to
discredit Christianity, they're succeeding with every message they
post.
That's what makes these people so delightful. We atheists don't have
to do a thing except lure such people into embarrassing their faith
and then sit back and laugh as they do so.
It never fails. We can pretty much control people like Duke and "I'll
be Bauck". All we have to do is start a certain kind of thread and we
can guarantee that they knee-jerk a response which will make them look
like idiots and Christianity look like the scam it is. It's so easy
it's boring a lot of the time, but it's so much fun that it's really
hard to resist!
Budikka
hypa...@comcast.net
Stuff it up your kazoo you hatefilled Nazi deviate.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hey, dud, don't you ever get embarrassed at thinking everybody runs away from
> you when your challenges are really so simple to correct.
>
thomas p.
Who do you think was being blamed? What an odd response!
huge
No, it's just people who believe in non-existent sky pixies, devils,
ghosts, spirits and such. Do you believe in those?
>Ain't it a bitch.
--
huge
>we're hearty crusaders,
Ohhhhhhhhhhh boy. That says it all.
Crusade _this_ godboi.
trying to do
> good things in their names. Get your head out of your ass and find
> something to do! Blame's easy
--
N. Ewing
> If god were the villain in some comedic action adventure, the critics
> would rip him for being over the top and thoroughly unbelievable (not
> that critics are very clued-in). But if we put this same god at the
> head of the big three monotheistic religions, suddenly we're supposed
> to not only respect, but also to worship this clown?
>
> _Discover_ magazine has a very revealing story here:
his creation. "It repented him that he had made man". To repent means
to be sorry and vow never to do it again. I would suggest
that this means that God washed his hands of the whole affair.
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > If god were the villain in some comedic action adventure, the critics
> > would rip him for being over the top and thoroughly unbelievable (not
> > that critics are very clued-in). But if we put this same god at the
> > head of the big three monotheistic religions, suddenly we're supposed
> > to not only respect, but also to worship this clown?
>
> > _Discover_ magazine has a very revealing story here:
That's a good argument except that the NT suggests he hadn't quite
done with humanity. It also suggests that this god was not only far
from perfect, but also neither competent nor a good judge, and not
even a loving god to boot. Any way you look at it, it's farcical to
imagine that any of it was even close to reality!
Budikka
Budikka666
wrote:
I've invited him to do that repeatedly. His response is consistently
to run away and hide behind his "Google it" mantra. In other words,
he admits he's lying!
Budikka
Budikka666
wrote:
"Stuff it up your kazoo"?!! I love it!
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Good thing it's just a story, not substantively different than the
Greek myths.
thomas p.
"N. Ewing" <new...@bellsouth.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:gHJ%m.633$YP1...@newsfe15.iad...
It would also mean that he was neither omnipotent or omniscient.
Syd M.
> wrote:
>
> Hey, dud, don't you ever get embarrassed at thinking everybody runs away from
> you when your challenges are really so simple to correct.
>
Really, Dork?
Is that why you've never actually answered one of her challenges?
PDW
Smiler
I'd apologise for that remark, if I were you. Some baboons are thinking of
suing you for defamation.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
fasgnadh
> hypa...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 5:15 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>>> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> your challenges are really so simple to correct.
>>>
>> Then, correct them, you lying baboon.
>
So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
We ALL AGREE!
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
fasgnadh
>>>
>>>> everybody runs away from you
>>>
>>>
>
> Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
Syd M.
> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0: > hypati...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >>> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> everybody runs away from you
> >>>
> >>>
> >> you lying baboon.
> >
> > Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>
> So you reckon it's the BABOONS
No, we reckon that your the bigest baboon around here, Failenuts.
PDW
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
> > hypa...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Jan 1, 5:15 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >>> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> your challenges are really so simple to correct.
> >>>
> >> Then, correct them, you lying baboon.
> >
> > Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>
> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
> them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>
> We ALL AGREE!
Only baboons agree. Humans put humans first.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
> > hypa...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> everybody runs away from you
> >>>
> >>>
> >> you lying baboon.
> >
> > Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>
> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
> them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>
> We ALL AGREE!
Baboons might put baboons above humans, but humans put humans above
baboons.
Father Haskell
> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
Referring to you as a baboon's ass is NOT the same
as referring to you as a baboon.
fasgnadh
Oh please, spare us your sexual fantasies.. you baboons might
want to be on top but no humans will go for it..!
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
>>>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> everybody runs away from you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> you lying baboon.
>>>
>
>
>>> Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>>
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
> them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>
> We BABOONS ALL AGREE!
But people don't.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > In article <0l10n.66612$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
> >>> hypa...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>>> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> everybody runs away from you
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> you lying baboon.
> >>>
> >>> Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
> >>
> >> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing them
> >> to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
> >>
> >> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
> >>
> >> We ALL AGREE!
> >
> > Baboons might value baboons above humans, like fasgnadh is doing,
> > but humans value humans above baboons.
> > Including baboons like fasgnadh. .
>
> Oh please, spare us your sexual fantasies.
Fasgnadh is the one having sexual fantasies, as well as all sorts of
other fantasies, if he thinks that his vicious attempts at character
assassination are socially acceptable.
fasgnadh
>> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
>>>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> everybody runs away from you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>>
>> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
>> them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>>
>> We ALL AGREE!
>
You can't see any fur in there, eh?
http://data5.blog.de/media/481/2584481_bdc195fac4_m.jpeg
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
> >>
> >> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
> >> them to Bukakke!?
Only baboons think so.
> >>
> >> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
There goes one of them now!!!
> >>
> >> We ALL AGREE!
A majority of the Baboon vote does not carry much weight
> >
> > a baboon's ass is NOT the same
> > as a baboon.
It is to you baboons.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
"Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian
Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of
chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest,
most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on
earth. Based on a year�s worth of research conducted while living in
Scandinavia, Society Without God by Phil Zuckerman explores life in a
largely secular culture, delving into the unique worldviews of secular
men and women who live in a largely irreligious society, and explaining
the reasons why some nations are less religious than others, and why
religious faith doesn�t seem to be the secret to national success that
so many claim it to be."
"Most Americans are convinced that faith in God is the foundation of
civil society. Society Without God reveals this to be nothing more than
a well-subscribed, and strangely American, delusion. Even atheists
living in the United States will be astonished to discover how
unencumbered by religion most Danes and Swedes currently are. This
glimpse of an alternate, secular reality is at once humbling and
profoundly inspiring--and it comes not a moment too soon."
Masked Avenger
> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
> > hypa...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> everybody runs away from you
> >>>
> >>>
> >> you lying baboon.
> >
> > Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>
> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
> them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>
> We ALL AGREE!
are you THAT fucking stupid that you think smiler was referring to
Buddika ?? ....or are you just being a devious hypocritical prick by
snipping parts of the post ........?? maybe you're both ......
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
>>> hypa...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> everybody runs away from you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> you lying baboon.
>>>
>>> Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>>
>> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
>> them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>>
>> We ALL AGREE!
>
> are you THAT fucking stupid that you think smiler was referring to
> Buddika ??
Are you THAT fucking stupid that you can't read attributions?
Smiler was referring to hypatia, not Bukakke, you atheist imbecile! B^]
It amazes me that you moral defectives sit with your heads up your arse
when some atheist maggot like Virgil or Syd Slander FORGES posts, and
you atheist shitpigs don't raise a squeak.. but if someone sends you
up you bark like rabid dogs!
Engaging with atheists is a battel of wits with UNARMED opponents! B^]
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Engaging with atheists is a battel of wits
And Fasgnadh enters the "battel" [sic] unarmed.
Syd M.
> fasgnadh wrote:
> > Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
> > >>> Budikka666 wrote:
>
> > >>>> everybody runs away from you
>
> > >> you lying baboon.
>
> > > Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>
> > So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
> > them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>
> > BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>
> > We ALL AGREE!
>
> are you THAT fucking stupid that you think smiler was referring to
> Buddika ?? ....or are you just being a devious hypocritical prick by
> snipping parts of the post ........?? maybe you're both ......
>
He is. He's a world class prick with a overblown sense of himself and
a unbriddled hatred for unbelievers.
He'll say anything just for attention.
PDW
Smiler
He's not worth the electrons needed to reply to him.
Syd M.
> Syd M. wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 6:25 am, Masked Avenger <coote...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> fasgnadh wrote:
> >>> Smiler seems to have turned against Atheism 2.0:
> >>>> hypati...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> everybody runs away from you
>
> >>>>> you lying baboon.
>
> >>>> Some baboons are thinking of suing you for defamation.
>
> >>> So you reckon it's the BABOONS who are defamed by comparing
> >>> them to Bukakke ..not the other way around!?
>
> >>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
>
> >>> We ALL AGREE!
>
> >> are you THAT fucking stupid that you think smiler was referring to
> >> Buddika ?? ....or are you just being a devious hypocritical prick by
> >> snipping parts of the post ........?? maybe you're both ......
>
> > He is. He's a world class prick with a overblown sense of himself and
> > a unbriddled hatred for unbelievers.
> > He'll say anything just for attention.
>
> He's not worth the electrons needed to reply to him.
>
>
Yep.
His overwhelming hatred makes it impossible to reason with him. He
wants to see the world one way, and unbelievers want to see it the
other. And his habit of lying about us renders his arguments moot.
PDW
Masked Avenger
he's a classic narcissist ....... his attitude makes my skin crawl ......