Let's have a day without religion
Warble606
or that their sacred books contain anything but jibberish,
and since humanity has spent too much time tearing itself apart over
this silly subject of make-believe invisible people called gods,
and the foolish people who take that sort of thing very seriously,
it is very clear that it's time to GIVE HUMANITY A BREAK FROM RELIGION.
Just for one day.
Whether your religion is islam, christianity, judaism or economic-liberalism,
wouldn't it be so nice so just give it a rest for one day?
Shut down the mosques, churches, temples, and the stock markets and World Bank.
They are doing humanity no good anyway. You know it.
Do you have no shame?
DianaC
"Warble606" <warb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d62b9bc.0409...@posting.google.com...
The stock markets and the World Bank?
(snort)
duke
>Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s) exist,
Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
>or that their sacred books contain anything but jibberish,
Or you have no book at all because you have nothing to put in it.
>and since humanity has spent too much time tearing itself apart over
>this silly subject of make-believe invisible people called gods,
And will until the end of time.
>and the foolish people who take that sort of thing very seriously,
And the foolish people that ignore the truth,
>it is very clear that it's time to GIVE HUMANITY A BREAK FROM RELIGION.
It is time we help these poor souls.
>Shut down the mosques, churches, temples, and the stock markets and World Bank.
>They are doing humanity no good anyway. You know it.
Why don't you just go visit the moon or a day?
>Do you have no shame?
Do you have no shame?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Vic Sagerquist
> On 10 Sep 2004 08:06:33 -0700, warb...@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:
>
>>Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s) exist,
>
> Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
Ahhh, but we don't have to. We don't care about your silly beliefs. You
can proselytize until you're blue in the face. Until you come up with hard
evidence, you convince nobody but other believers.
>
>>or that their sacred books contain anything but jibberish,
>
> Or you have no book at all because you have nothing to put in it.
>
>>and since humanity has spent too much time tearing itself apart over
>>this silly subject of make-believe invisible people called gods,
>
> And will until the end of time.
>
>>and the foolish people who take that sort of thing very seriously,
>
> And the foolish people that ignore the truth,
Matthew 5:22. You don't really believe this crap either, do you?
>
>>it is very clear that it's time to GIVE HUMANITY A BREAK FROM
>>RELIGION.
>
> It is time we help these poor souls.
Actually, it's time you religious freaks shut your fucking traps and keep
your dreams to yourselves. Sane people are not interested.
>
>>Shut down the mosques, churches, temples, and the stock markets and
>>World Bank. They are doing humanity no good anyway. You know it.
>
> Why don't you just go visit the moon or a day?
>
>>Do you have no shame?
>
> Do you have no shame?
>
I see you certainly don't. Go pray in the closet, like you jesus told you.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
DianaC
"Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95606D8A...@127.0.0.1...
> on 10 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
>
> > On 10 Sep 2004 08:06:33 -0700, warb...@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:
> >
> >>Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s) exist,
> >
> > Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
>
>
> Ahhh, but we don't have to. We don't care about your silly beliefs. You
> can proselytize until you're blue in the face. Until you come up with
hard
> evidence, you convince nobody but other believers.
Well...you may not care, but the guy that started this thread does. After
all, if he didn't care, why would he suggest a day without 'em? I mean, I
for one would never suggest that you or any other atheist be forced into a
church, why would any of you suggest a day where we couldn't go INTO one if
we wished? That, to me, is 'caring'.
a lot.
Pip
get everybody to regonise that we are all human beings and we should
interact as such, rather as factions....
RELIGION is man-made, dictated from "God" by humans - but really the scarey
thing is that if everyone had a point of view and a spiritual
goal.........whoah......
....off agenda ? unacceptable ?........ :)
duke
>>>Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s) exist,
>> Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
>Ahhh, but we don't have to.
Nor do I have to.
>> And the foolish people that ignore the truth,
>Matthew 5:22. You don't really believe this crap either, do you?
Matthew 5
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[1] will be subject to judgment.
Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[2] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But
anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Of course I believe it.
>>>it is very clear that it's time to GIVE HUMANITY A BREAK FROM
>>>RELIGION.
>> It is time we help these poor souls.
>Actually, it's time you religious freaks shut your fucking traps and keep
>your dreams to yourselves. Sane people are not interested.
I'm trying to help you.
>I see you certainly don't. Go pray in the closet, like you jesus told you.
That's only so I don't falsely look for sympathy for praying so.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>"Warble606" <warb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4d62b9bc.0409...@posting.google.com...
>> Shut down the mosques, churches, temples, and the stock markets and World
>Bank.
>> They are doing humanity no good anyway. You know it.
>>
>> Do you have no shame?
>
>The stock markets and the World Bank?
Temples of Mammon....?
-- Roy L
Warble606
> Well...you may not care, but the guy that started this thread does. After
> all, if he didn't care, why would he suggest a day without 'em? I mean, I
> for one would never suggest that you or any other atheist be forced into a
> church, why would any of you suggest a day where we couldn't go INTO one if
> we wished? That, to me, is 'caring'.
Yes, I care: I care if a homeless person gets beat up by a cop,
I care if an oil company has its thugs massacre Nigerians to protect profits,
I care if a child experiences child-abuse in the form of religious indoctrination.
All of these are injustices. All I am saying is, if the bullies of the world
had any shame, they would agree to at least a day without their bullying;
but they haven't. And that's a real shame.
DianaC
Ah.
So according to you, religion is child abuse. you don't like religion.
Therefore you really would rather there weren't any.
In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and what
we do about it.
Which of course was my only point, made to the guy who insisted that
atheists do NOT care.
Thank you for confirming my point.
Warble606
> The stock markets and the World Bank?
Haven't you heard? Alan Greenspan is the American Pope.
Ya got ta buhLEEVE in da Alan man.
Your Name Here=Harvey
warb...@yahoo.com says...
There has to be something that unifies people together and to allow them
to live in harmony and peace.
Religion was suppose to do that - at it's best - but at it's worst it has
merely divided people apart (and still do) and kept a few in power and
control [which is what distorted religion - always has, always will].
Common sense and simple logic, ought to be followed at all times,
to tell apart what is true and what is unbelievable.
But this 'reality' is very complicated and understand life - you need to
take a lot of things into consideration.
In this reality, there is not the 100% proof available - but proof nonetheless
is there, for those who are able to comprehend and see it. [Maybe not
directly,
but through others, who are seers.]
Harvey
Vic Sagerquist
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:45:52 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>> And the foolish people that ignore the truth,
>>Matthew 5:22. You don't really believe this crap either, do you?
>
> Matthew 5
> 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[1] will be
> subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[2]
> ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!'
> will be in danger of the fire of hell.
>
> Of course I believe it.
You said "thou fool", brother.
>
>>>>it is very clear that it's time to GIVE HUMANITY A BREAK FROM
>>>>RELIGION.
>>> It is time we help these poor souls.
>
>>Actually, it's time you religious freaks shut your fucking traps and
>>keep your dreams to yourselves. Sane people are not interested.
>
> I'm trying to help you.
I don't need any. I don't need gods either. I saw through the smoke
screen when I was seven years old. I quit going to church then, and I've
only been back for a few weddings and funerals. With the exception of
one last-ditch effort in my teen years to satisfy myself that I was not
"lost" as you people put it. I had a girlfriend who had converted to
Mormonism, so I gave that a shot. They're all the same, I tell you.
Bullshit stories, asserted, with no evidence to back them up. When I
questioned them, I got more crap answers. I even gave the non-
denominational church down the street a few Sundays - Robert Schuller's
Hour of Power Crystal Cathedral. Lots of glitz and glamor, but where's
the beef? No beef, just bull. The same tired old bull. When I went off
to college I gave it up all together. I've only embraced atheism fully
for the last 3-4 years, though. It was weird at first, but for the first
time in my life I felt spiritually correct.
<snip>
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, duke poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> On 10 Sep 2004 08:06:33 -0700, warb...@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:
>
> >Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s) exist,
>
> Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
Your deity can be disproven, and I supplied you the material on a
previous occasion. You cannot refute my argument, so it stands
unopposed.
> >or that their sacred books contain anything but jibberish,
>
> Or you have no book at all because you have nothing to put in it.
LOL!! How typical of you! Preferring gibberish to having nothing.
> >and since humanity has spent too much time tearing itself apart over
> >this silly subject of make-believe invisible people called gods,
>
> And will until the end of time.
Yup. Thanks to religion.
> >and the foolish people who take that sort of thing very seriously,
>
> And the foolish people that ignore the truth,
One and the same people.
> >it is very clear that it's time to GIVE HUMANITY A BREAK FROM RELIGION.
>
> It is time we help these poor souls.
That was the purpose of the Inquisition.
> >Shut down the mosques, churches, temples, and the stock markets and World Bank.
> >They are doing humanity no good anyway. You know it.
>
> Why don't you just go visit the moon or a day?
It's been done already.
> >Do you have no shame?
>
> Do you have no shame?
>
> duke ...
... certainly doesn't.
Regards,
Josef
But the more firmly they believe in their delusions, the more they stand
in need of treatment.
-- Epictetus
Vic Sagerquist
> Ah.
>
> So according to you, religion is child abuse. you don't like religion.
> Therefore you really would rather there weren't any.
>
> In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and
> what we do about it.
We don't care about your BELIEFS. We do care about the impact they have
on society. Big difference.
>
> Which of course was my only point, made to the guy who insisted that
> atheists do NOT care.
>
> Thank you for confirming my point.
The one on top of your head, no doubt.
DianaC
> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach DianaC:
>
> > Ah.
> >
> > So according to you, religion is child abuse. you don't like religion.
> > Therefore you really would rather there weren't any.
> >
> > In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and
> > what we do about it.
>
> We don't care about your BELIEFS. We do care about the impact they have
> on society. Big difference.
Same thing. Your beliefs define your behavior, unless you are a rampant
hypocrite.
>
> >
> > Which of course was my only point, made to the guy who insisted that
> > atheists do NOT care.
> >
> > Thank you for confirming my point.
>
> The one on top of your head, no doubt.
Such courteous and cogent responses indicate that you need to read more.
Your ad hominems need refilling.
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>Ah.
>
>So according to you, religion is child abuse.
No, teaching children, unsubstantiated, superstitious, bullshit, and
calling it fact, is child abuse.
> you don't like religion.
I doubt that any of us have a problem with religion, until you start
force feeding it to children, as fact, or until you come in here, and
try to sell it to us.
>Therefore you really would rather there weren't any.
>
No so. Having met some of the xtians, muslims, etc, that frequent
these groups, I, for one, accept that religion is necessary, it is the
only thing that keeps them safe in public.
Unfortunately, there is the extreme edge, where you find the bin
Ladins, Ascots, Bushes, and Blairs, of this world, but even without
religion, they would find a murderous outlet for their fanaticism.
>In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and what
>we do about it.
Only in the areas I have mentioned.
>
>Which of course was my only point,
You had a point? Interesting.
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
Christopher A. Lee
<add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach DianaC:
>
>> Ah.
>>
>> So according to you, religion is child abuse. you don't like religion.
>> Therefore you really would rather there weren't any.
>>
>> In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and
>> what we do about it.
>
>We don't care about your BELIEFS. We do care about the impact they have
>on society. Big difference.
She's been pretending she can't tell the difference ever since her
first appearence here. It's one of the things that got her elected as
an AA kook.
•R.L.Measures
• It may be that organized religion is God's/Allah's way of controlling
human population on this planet?
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
>>>> And the foolish people that ignore the truth,
>>>Matthew 5:22. You don't really believe this crap either, do you?
>>
>> Matthew 5
>> 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[1] will be
>> subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[2]
>> ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!'
>> will be in danger of the fire of hell.
>> Of course I believe it.
>You said "thou fool", brother.
???? And?
>> I'm trying to help you.
>I don't need any. I don't need gods either.
Oh, sure you do. You're facing an eternity ahead of you, and you're foolishly wishing for
something that is absolutely not going to come true - that there is no God.
> I saw through the smoke
>screen when I was seven years old. I quit going to church then, and I've
>only been back for a few weddings and funerals. With the exception of
>one last-ditch effort in my teen years to satisfy myself that I was not
>"lost" as you people put it. I had a girlfriend who had converted to
>Mormonism, so I gave that a shot. They're all the same, I tell you.
>Bullshit stories, asserted, with no evidence to back them up. When I
>questioned them, I got more crap answers. I even gave the non-
>denominational church down the street a few Sundays - Robert Schuller's
>Hour of Power Crystal Cathedral. Lots of glitz and glamor, but where's
>the beef? No beef, just bull. The same tired old bull. When I went off
>to college I gave it up all together. I've only embraced atheism fully
>for the last 3-4 years, though. It was weird at first, but for the first
>time in my life I felt spiritually correct.
My Catholic faith doesn't talk about "lost", or fire and brimstone, etc but to "love one
another as God loves us". John 13:34 The Catholic Church, Roman version, is the church
founded by Christ.
DianaC
"Puck Greenman" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:lti5k0ps6nglum29r...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:04:41 GMT, "DianaC" <dian...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ah.
> >
> >So according to you, religion is child abuse.
>
> No, teaching children, unsubstantiated, superstitious, bullshit, and
> calling it fact, is child abuse.
But to you all religion is unsubstantiated, superstitious bullshit. Ergo....
> > you don't like religion.
>
> I doubt that any of us have a problem with religion, until you start
> force feeding it to children, as fact, or until you come in here, and
> try to sell it to us.
So religion is just fine as long as you don't teach a child about it.
Gotcha.
> >Therefore you really would rather there weren't any.
> >
>
> No so. Having met some of the xtians, muslims, etc, that frequent
> these groups, I, for one, accept that religion is necessary, it is the
> only thing that keeps them safe in public.
> Unfortunately, there is the extreme edge, where you find the bin
> Ladins, Ascots, Bushes, and Blairs, of this world, but even without
> religion, they would find a murderous outlet for their fanaticism.
>
>
>
> >In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and
what
> >we do about it.
>
> Only in the areas I have mentioned.
We can't teach our children, or practice our religions. Gotcha.
Vic Sagerquist
>>You said "thou fool", brother.
>
> ???? And?
Matthew 5:22 says you are in danger of hellfire. Not to worry. For one
thing, hell doesn't actually exist - it's just part of the fairy tale. And
for the other part, most believers only believe the parts of the bible they
want to believe, and discard the rest. I'm like that in a way myself. But
I discard the entire thing.
>
>>> I'm trying to help you.
>>I don't need any. I don't need gods either.
>
> Oh, sure you do. You're facing an eternity ahead of you, and you're
> foolishly wishing for something that is absolutely not going to come
> true - that there is no God.
As I said in my previous post, I don't believe that. There are many many
religions on this earth, each of which have a different view of what
happens when you die. You believe life somehow continues beyond the death
of your brain. I believe death is the end, and that which dwells beyond
life is the same as that which preceeded it.
I cannot prove I am correct, and you cannot prove you are. However, my
version makes more sense to me, so there you are.
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>
>"Puck Greenman" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>news:lti5k0ps6nglum29r...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:04:41 GMT, "DianaC" <dian...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>But to you all religion is unsubstantiated, superstitious bullshit. Ergo....
>> > you don't like religion.
>>
I don't like lentils or milli(sp) meal, but I would never consider
banning them, hey are all that some people have.
>> I doubt that any of us have a problem with religion, until you start
>> force feeding it to children, as fact, or until you come in here, and
>> try to sell it to us.
>
>So religion is just fine as long as you don't teach a child about it.
Yes. Educate them first, then teach them about your myth, so that they
can make a proper, educated assessment.
But you will not do that, you indoctrinate/brainwash them early,
because if you do not, you will never get them, reason will outweigh
superstition.
>Gotcha.
Somehow, I doubt that.
>> Only in the areas I have mentioned.
>
>We can't teach our children,
Correct.
>or practice our religions.
Practice by all means, but leave the kids alone.
>Gotcha.
>
Evidently not.
DianaC
"Puck Greenman" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
yes, I do.
You want to tell me what I can or can't teach my kids, when I can worship
and how.
And you have the nerve to criticise theists for imposing their beliefs on
you?
Jez
> on 10 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
>
>
>>On 10 Sep 2004 08:06:33 -0700, warb...@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s) exist,
>>
>>Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
>
>
>
> Ahhh, but we don't have to. We don't care about your silly beliefs. You
> can proselytize until you're blue in the face. Until you come up with hard
> evidence, you convince nobody but other believers.
Well, the fun would start just after they prove 'Gods' existence.
Then we can start suing the muther-fucker for all the suffering he has
caused.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Skype callto://hellward
Mason A. Clark
interested in:
http://masonc.home.netcom.com/quimby/quimby.html
especially Chapter 4, 13, and 14.
Whatever became of the Age of Enlightment?
Mason C
Warble606
> "Warble606" <warb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> So according to you, religion is child abuse.
Of course: it limits the child's ability to cogitate clearly in future,
and inclines the child toward an addiction with fantasies surrounding
invisible make-believe people. Not to mention the fact that some
parents try to induce a loony obsession with 'sin'.
Religion is an aggressive parasite onto humanity. It is an addictive disease.
> In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and what
> we do about it.
Insofar as theists are victims of religion, yes. And insofar as theists
annoy or harm innocent people, yes.
Warble606
> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach DianaC:
> > In other words, you care very much what we do, or do not, believe and
> > what we do about it.
>
> We don't care about your BELIEFS. We do care about the impact they have
> on society. Big difference.
I also have pity for people whose potentials as human beings
are limited or destroyed by spiritual irrationality and religious organizations.
DianaC
And I think that your total and complete lack of faith in any sort of diety
makes you insane, worthy of psychiatric examination and we should pass a law
requiring you to enter intense therapy to prove whether you are capable of
handling your own decisions.
Wait.
You don't LIKE that idea?
How is that any different from your suggestion that we have a 'day without
religion' (forced upon those who don't want a day without religion) and a
suggestion that parents not be allowed to teach their religious beliefs to
their children?
My point here is that your attitude toward theists and theism is every inch
as dangerous and objectionable as that of those who insist that everybody
participate in school prayer.
Vic Sagerquist
> You want to tell me what I can or can't teach my kids, when I can worship
> and how.
False. We do, however, wish to limit your ability to brainwash *our* kids.
>
> And you have the nerve to criticise theists for imposing their beliefs on
> you?
Absolutely.
DianaC
> on 11 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, DianaC dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
>
> > You want to tell me what I can or can't teach my kids, when I can
worship
> > and how.
>
> False. We do, however, wish to limit your ability to brainwash *our*
kids.
>
> >
> > And you have the nerve to criticise theists for imposing their beliefs
on
> > you?
>
> Absolutely.
>
I am not suggesting that I be allowed to 'brainwash' YOUR kids.
However, you are suggesting that I not be allowed to teach MINE.
I find that disturbing in someone who criticises theists for being unduly
influential.
duke
>>>You said "thou fool", brother.
>> ???? And?
>Matthew 5:22 says you are in danger of hellfire.
Psalm 14
1 The fool [1] says in his heart, "There is no God."
Your point?
> Not to worry. For one
>thing, hell doesn't actually exist - it's just part of the fairy tale.
Well, it's something you can neither prove nor provide evidence for. In fact all
evidence demands otherwise. So I'll stick with my beliefs and not yours.
> And
>for the other part, most believers only believe the parts of the bible they
>want to believe, and discard the rest. I'm like that in a way myself. But
>I discard the entire thing.
I believe everything that is representative of the salvation of my soul, and spending an
eternity sharing in the glory of God.
>> Oh, sure you do. You're facing an eternity ahead of you, and you're
>> foolishly wishing for something that is absolutely not going to come
>> true - that there is no God.
>As I said in my previous post, I don't believe that.
And what if you are wrong, as I think you are.
> There are many many
>religions on this earth, each of which have a different view of what
>happens when you die.
But only one in which a real man was crucified on a cross died, was buried for parts of 3
days, did rise from the dead, and walk and talk and eat and drink with 500+ of his
disciples before ascending to the Father.
> You believe life somehow continues beyond the death
>of your brain. I believe death is the end, and that which dwells beyond
>life is the same as that which preceeded it.
The brain and the soul are two different things. The creator of the universe can do that,
you know.
>I cannot prove I am correct, and you cannot prove you are. However, my
>version makes more sense to me, so there you are.
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. You: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is no
almighty God.
Warble606
> There has to be something that unifies people together and to allow them
> to live in harmony and peace.
We have 6 billion people on a planet that can only accommodate the needs
of 1 billion people who are living like Americans. Therefore resource conflicts
are a given from here on out. Unless the rich don't kill off the excess
population that is.
> Common sense and simple logic, ought to be followed at all times,
> to tell apart what is true and what is unbelievable.
What's true is ecology.
Vic Sagerquist
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:30:54 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>You said "thou fool", brother.
>>> ???? And?
>
>>Matthew 5:22 says you are in danger of hellfire.
>
> Psalm 14
> 1 The fool [1] says in his heart, "There is no God."
>
> Your point?
Hmmmm. Let's assign equal weight to both verses. Is it safe to assume
then, that the bible says it's ok to think "fool", but you just can't say
it? :-)
>
>> Not to worry. For one
>>thing, hell doesn't actually exist - it's just part of the fairy tale.
>
> Well, it's something you can neither prove nor provide evidence for.
> In fact all evidence demands otherwise. So I'll stick with my beliefs
> and not yours.
Since you can make hell exist just by believing in it, I can make it go
away by not believing in it.
>
>> And
>>for the other part, most believers only believe the parts of the bible
>>they want to believe, and discard the rest. I'm like that in a way
>>myself. But I discard the entire thing.
>
> I believe everything that is representative of the salvation of my
> soul, and spending an eternity sharing in the glory of God.
And I believe there is no such thing as a soul, or anything spiritual,
including any spiritual plane. What you perceive is what you get. It's a
nice comfy dream, though. Enjoy it while you're alive if it makes you
happy.
>
>>> Oh, sure you do. You're facing an eternity ahead of you, and you're
>>> foolishly wishing for something that is absolutely not going to come
>>> true - that there is no God.
>
>>As I said in my previous post, I don't believe that.
>
> And what if you are wrong, as I think you are.
I don't think I am. Lack of evidence, biblical error absurdity and
contradiction, and the history of pagan religion back up my theory enough
to embrace atheism.
>
>> There are many many
>>religions on this earth, each of which have a different view of what
>>happens when you die.
>
> But only one in which a real man was crucified on a cross died, was
> buried for parts of 3 days, did rise from the dead, and walk and talk
> and eat and drink with 500+ of his disciples before ascending to the
> Father.
Not one of the writers of the bible witnessed this. When you add to it the
fact that quite a few pagan myths that predate the story of christ (kryst,
ktystos, krishna, etc.) all tell basically the same story, it casts a
serious cloud of doubt upon the Christian doctrine. Try asking a priest
about this. The answer will either be a comforting lie, or a handwave with
a warning about thinking about these kind of things.
>
>> You believe life somehow continues beyond the death
>>of your brain. I believe death is the end, and that which dwells
>>beyond life is the same as that which preceeded it.
>
> The brain and the soul are two different things. The creator of the
> universe can do that, you know.
No I don't know, but I do know you cannot demonstrate this.
>
>>I cannot prove I am correct, and you cannot prove you are. However,
>>my version makes more sense to me, so there you are.
>
> Me: win (hopefully)/no win. You: lose/no win. No win comes into
> play if there is no almighty God.
Pascal's Wager. It's not very convincing to see you keep supporting your
assertions with this.
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>yes, I do.
>
>You want to tell me what I can or can't teach my kids, when I can worship
>and how.
>
I believe that like pornography, or alcohol, there should be a minimum
age limit at which children may be exposed to it, say 18yrs.
Outside of that, worship what you like, in an appropriate venue, not
in public.
As for teaching your children; what is wrong with teaching them that
which is supported by empiric evidence.
But then, I forget; You have to warp their minds while they are very
young, because you know that you wont be able to do it once they are
grown.
>And you have the nerve to criticise theists for imposing their beliefs on
>you?
It seems only fair. Theists, particularly xtians, have imposed their
superstitious beliefs on the rest of us for over 1500 years.
Yours are the anti blasphemy laws.
Yours are the anti witch laws
Yours are the laws about public nudity.
Yours are the victimless crime laws.
No atheist has ever burned a xtian at the stake for believing.
No atheist has ever suggested that theists should be deprived of their
citizenship.
It wasn't atheists, who a century ago, tried to introduce laws to make
animals wear pants.
It isn't atheists, who have forced their own superstition driven
"morality"(I use the word loosely), on everybody.
It isn't atheists, who want to kill others for no better reason than
that they do not share the same beliefs.
There are no atheist, pedophile, priests, and if there was a minimum
age limit of 18 years, for introducing children to religion, you would
hear a lot less about theist, pedophile, priests. The children would
be safely out of their reach.
We don't want you to give up your beliefs, or even to stop you
preaching/teaching them, we just want to make sure that those you
teach, or preach at, first have enough education to be capable of
deciding for them selves.
If what you teach is some higher, god given, truth, then you should
have no fear, your god will show them the truth: Wont it?
But you don't have enough faith in your god, to do that; do you?
In fact, you know that your god *can't* do it. If you do not
perpetuate the myth, nothing, no god, will do it.
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>And I think that your total and complete lack of faith in any sort of diety
>makes you insane, worthy of psychiatric examination and we should pass a law
>requiring you to enter intense therapy to prove whether you are capable of
>handling your own decisions.
>
>Wait.
>
>You don't LIKE that idea?
No, no. That is fine, so long as you undergo the same test.
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>I am not suggesting that I be allowed to 'brainwash' YOUR kids.
>
>However, you are suggesting that I not be allowed to teach MINE.
^^^^^
You spelt "brainwash", wrong.
DianaC
"Puck Greenman" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:22:58 GMT, "DianaC" <dian...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >And I think that your total and complete lack of faith in any sort of
diety
> >makes you insane, worthy of psychiatric examination and we should pass a
law
> >requiring you to enter intense therapy to prove whether you are capable
of
> >handling your own decisions.
> >
> >Wait.
> >
> >You don't LIKE that idea?
>
Been there, done that, judged quite sane, thank you.
Can you say the same?
Warble606
> And I think that your total and complete lack of faith in any sort of diety
> makes you insane
Can you be more purile?
> My point here is that your attitude toward theists and theism is every inch
> as dangerous and objectionable as that of those who insist that everybody
> participate in school prayer.
Not at all. This is not about me imposing my culture on
other people. It's about undoing the damage that religion can do
to innocent people. Not that humans don't have "spiritual"
tendencies, but what religious organizations do is exploit
that failing, like a pathogen entering a wound.
DianaC
news:<SvG0d.2049$ZP.693@trnddc05>...
>
> > And I think that your total and complete lack of faith in any sort of
diety
> > makes you insane
>
> Can you be more purile?
Can you be more stupid? Taking the above comment out of context is pretty
stupid.
>
> > My point here is that your attitude toward theists and theism is every
inch
> > as dangerous and objectionable as that of those who insist that
everybody
> > participate in school prayer.
>
> Not at all. This is not about me imposing my culture on
> other people. It's about undoing the damage that religion can do
> to innocent people. Not that humans don't have "spiritual"
> tendencies, but what religious organizations do is exploit
> that failing, like a pathogen entering a wound.
I get it. Imposing your culture on others isn't imposing your culture on
others if your culture is the correct one.
stoney
{piggybacking}
> on 10 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then
> shouted:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2004 08:06:33 -0700, warb...@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:
>>
>>>Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s) exist,
>>
>> Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
>
>
> Ahhh, but we don't have to.
Been there. Done that.
[]
DianaC
"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
news:10k8sr8...@corp.supernews.com...
WELCOME BACK!!!
duke
>>>Matthew 5:22 says you are in danger of hellfire.
>> Psalm 14
>> 1 The fool [1] says in his heart, "There is no God."
>> Your point?
>Hmmmm. Let's assign equal weight to both verses. Is it safe to assume
>then, that the bible says it's ok to think "fool", but you just can't say
>it? :-)
Nope, it means that the circumstance is what counts.
>Since you can make hell exist just by believing in it, I can make it go
>away by not believing in it.
Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one totally void of the love of God.
And it's your choice, that's the crazy part.
>And I believe there is no such thing as a soul, or anything spiritual,
>including any spiritual plane. What you perceive is what you get. It's a
>nice comfy dream, though. Enjoy it while you're alive if it makes you
>happy.
Believing and existing are two different things. Disbelieve all you wish.
>I don't think I am. Lack of evidence, biblical error absurdity and
>contradiction, and the history of pagan religion back up my theory enough
>to embrace atheism.
There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without error when it comes
to the revealed word of God (the rest being the words of men), and God came eons before
some pagan rituals.
>> But only one in which a real man was crucified on a cross died, was
>> buried for parts of 3 days, did rise from the dead, and walk and talk
>> and eat and drink with 500+ of his disciples before ascending to the
>> Father.
>Not one of the writers of the bible witnessed this.
So what if 4 guys weren't of the 500+? 500+ witnessed and participated in it.
You think history books are written by witnesses?
>> The brain and the soul are two different things. The creator of the
>> universe can do that, you know.
>No I don't know, but I do know you cannot demonstrate this.
Of course I can't demonstrate it. Nor can you for your position.
But both of us will find out for sure one day. I'm in a win/no win position. You're in a
lose/no win position.
>> Me: win (hopefully)/no win. You: lose/no win. No win comes into
>> play if there is no almighty God.
>Pascal's Wager. It's not very convincing to see you keep supporting your
>assertions with this.
Nope, it's not Pascal's wager. The PW is an actual wager on how real people would bet
money. The premise of the PW, though, is rock solid.
If God does exist, you lose, I win (hopefully). If he doesn't, both of us face a "no
win".
Vic Sagerquist
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:19:20 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Matthew 5:22 says you are in danger of hellfire.
>>> Psalm 14
>>> 1 The fool [1] says in his heart, "There is no God."
>>> Your point?
>
>>Hmmmm. Let's assign equal weight to both verses. Is it safe to
>>assume then, that the bible says it's ok to think "fool", but you just
>>can't say it? :-)
>
> Nope, it means that the circumstance is what counts.
>
>>Since you can make hell exist just by believing in it, I can make it
>>go away by not believing in it.
>
> Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one totally void
> of the love of God.
According to the Baptists it's fire and brimstone. Who's right? Like I
said before, there are as many different versions of afterlife as there are
religions, and each one asserts it is the one true religion. Hogwash.
>
> And it's your choice, that's the crazy part.
Yup. I choose none.
>
>>And I believe there is no such thing as a soul, or anything spiritual,
>>including any spiritual plane. What you perceive is what you get.
>>It's a nice comfy dream, though. Enjoy it while you're alive if it
>>makes you happy.
>
> Believing and existing are two different things. Disbelieve all you
> wish.
Hahahahhhaaaa! Doesn't that make you dizzy?
>
>>I don't think I am. Lack of evidence, biblical error absurdity and
>>contradiction, and the history of pagan religion back up my theory
>>enough to embrace atheism.
>
> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without
> error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest being the
> words of men), and God came eons before some pagan rituals.
You're killing me! Your entire worldview is a logical fallacy!
>
>>> But only one in which a real man was crucified on a cross died, was
>>> buried for parts of 3 days, did rise from the dead, and walk and
>>> talk and eat and drink with 500+ of his disciples before ascending
>>> to the Father.
>
>>Not one of the writers of the bible witnessed this.
>
> So what if 4 guys weren't of the 500+? 500+ witnessed and
> participated in it.
You miss the point. The "4 guys" made up the 500+ witnesses.
>
> You think history books are written by witnesses?
>
>>> The brain and the soul are two different things. The creator of the
>>> universe can do that, you know.
>>No I don't know, but I do know you cannot demonstrate this.
>
> Of course I can't demonstrate it. Nor can you for your position.
Then why dwell on it?
>
> But both of us will find out for sure one day. I'm in a win/no win
> position. You're in a lose/no win position.
Pascal's Wager.
>
>>> Me: win (hopefully)/no win. You: lose/no win. No win comes into
>>> play if there is no almighty God.
>
>>Pascal's Wager. It's not very convincing to see you keep supporting
>>your assertions with this.
>
> Nope, it's not Pascal's wager. The PW is an actual wager on how real
> people would bet money. The premise of the PW, though, is rock solid.
>
> If God does exist, you lose, I win (hopefully). If he doesn't, both
> of us face a "no win".
>
I give up. Teaching logic to a christer is like trying to cut an anvil
with a plastic knife.
Vic Sagerquist
This post contains some real jewels. Eenie meenie miney moe, I nominate
this quote by Duke:
> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without
> error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest being the
> words of men), and God came eons before some pagan rituals.
Seconds?
Enkidu
news:5j19k0hc9kefea15c...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:19:20 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Matthew 5:22 says you are in danger of hellfire.
>>> Psalm 14
>>> 1 The fool [1] says in his heart, "There is no God."
>>> Your point?
>
>>Hmmmm. Let's assign equal weight to both verses. Is it safe to
>>assume then, that the bible says it's ok to think "fool", but you just
>>can't say it? :-)
>
> Nope, it means that the circumstance is what counts.
>
>>Since you can make hell exist just by believing in it, I can make it
>>go away by not believing in it.
>
> Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one totally void
> of the love of God.
After seeing "the love of God" here on Earth, the less of it, the
better. Death from famine, earthquake, monsoon, starvation, disease,
Bush, and a thousand other causes, straight from God. Any man who could
protect a child from evil but chooses not to do so is evil. That your
"omnibenevolent, omnipotent God" fails to do so is proof enough for me
that he is a figment of your imagination.
> And it's your choice, that's the crazy part.
And I choose sanity.
>>And I believe there is no such thing as a soul, or anything spiritual,
>>including any spiritual plane. What you perceive is what you get.
>>It's a nice comfy dream, though. Enjoy it while you're alive if it
>>makes you happy.
>
> Believing and existing are two different things. Disbelieve all you
> wish.
"Believing and existing are two different things." Perhaps the first
truth you've uttered. Too bad you can't understand it.
>>I don't think I am. Lack of evidence, biblical error absurdity and
>>contradiction, and the history of pagan religion back up my theory
>>enough to embrace atheism.
>
> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without
> error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest being the
> words of men), and God came eons before some pagan rituals.
You are wrong. The God of Christianity is self-contradictory. It's
different charateristics conflict with each other and with the observed
state of the universe. Could *some* god exist? I can argue that, but
it depends on how such a god is defined. But there is no doubt that the
god of Christianity is a logical impossibility.
And this is entirely irrelevant, as there is no evidence for the
non-existence of ANYTHING that could exist but does not. That is why
you must supply the evidence for your proposal.
>>> But only one in which a real man was crucified on a cross died, was
>>> buried for parts of 3 days, did rise from the dead, and walk and
>>> talk and eat and drink with 500+ of his disciples before ascending
>>> to the Father.
>
>>Not one of the writers of the bible witnessed this.
>
> So what if 4 guys weren't of the 500+? 500+ witnessed and
> participated in it.
And they aren't talking. We don't know what they witnessed, if they
witnessed anything at all, if they ever existed.
> You think history books are written by witnesses?
Some of them are. The Egyptians wrote their history on their walls.
The Romans too, as well as on paper, coins, statues, and buildings.
>>> The brain and the soul are two different things. The creator of the
>>> universe can do that, you know.
>>
>>No I don't know, but I do know you cannot demonstrate this.
>
> Of course I can't demonstrate it. Nor can you for your position.
"I can't demonstrate A, but since you can't disprove it A, A is proven."
Stupid, stupid, stupid. "I don't know" is a better answer when you
don't know.
> But both of us will find out for sure one day. I'm in a win/no win
> position. You're in a lose/no win position.
No, we will not. We will be dead. Your lame phrasing of Pascal's wager
is evidence of nothing but your own muddled thinking, your
rationialization of what you believe.
>>> Me: win (hopefully)/no win. You: lose/no win. No win comes into
>>> play if there is no almighty God.
>
>>Pascal's Wager. It's not very convincing to see you keep supporting
>>your assertions with this.
>
> Nope, it's not Pascal's wager. The PW is an actual wager on how real
> people would bet money. The premise of the PW, though, is rock solid.
Which god should one bet on? Why? Because YOU say so? Aside from the
fact that you lie continuously and you are stupid, appeals to authority
are invalid.
> If God does exist, you lose, I win (hopefully). If he doesn't, both
> of us face a "no win".
Hurry up and see your god. If it's so great, why are you waiting? Die
now and leave us in peace.
--
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Dave Brubeck Quartet - Take Five
That wall, embodied in the First Amendment, is perhaps
America's most important contribution to political progress
on this planet.
Lowell Weicker
Republican Senator 1971-1989
Warble606
> Taking the above comment out of context is pretty
> stupid.
You said something stupid, and I didn't take it out of context.
> I get it. Imposing your culture on others isn't imposing your culture on
> others if your culture is the correct one.
No you don't. I don't want to impose culture, I want to impose Reason.
If you don't know the difference, then maybe you should finally
go back and repeat middle and high school.
wbarwell
No, 500 witnessed nothing.
Mark says jesus appeared to his apostles hiding
in Jerusalem, upbraided them, and then and there
ascenced to heaven.
Matthew says the apostles were told to meet him
in Galilee and did.
In both contradictory accounts, no 40 days in
Jerusalem, as per Acts, no 500 witnesses to nuthin'.
Just a pack of liars writing books of lies is all.
>
>>> The brain and the soul are two different things. The creator of the
>>> universe can do that, you know.
>>No I don't know, but I do know you cannot demonstrate this.
>
> Of course I can't demonstrate it. Nor can you for your position.
>
> But both of us will find out for sure one day. I'm in a win/no win
> position. You're in a lose/no win position.
>
>>> Me: win (hopefully)/no win. You: lose/no win. No win comes into
>>> play if there is no almighty God.
>
>>Pascal's Wager. It's not very convincing to see you keep supporting your
>>assertions with this.
>
> Nope, it's not Pascal's wager. The PW is an actual wager on how real
> people would bet
> money. The premise of the PW, though, is rock solid.
>
> If God does exist, you lose, I win (hopefully). If he doesn't, both of us
> face a "no win".
>
> duke
> *****
> Matthew 22
> 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
> *****
--
Bush added $2 trillion in national debt in three years. The
biggest addition of national debt of any president. There are
280 million Americans. That is $3,333 per American, $13,332
For a family of four. Bush wants to make the tax cuts that are
generating these vast debts permanent.Vote Kerry, we cannot
afford more massive debt.
Cheerful Charlie
duke
>on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
>
>This post contains some real jewels. Eenie meenie miney moe, I nominate
>this quote by Duke:
>
>> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without
>> error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest being the
>> words of men), and God came eons before some pagan rituals.
>
>Seconds?
I second it, I second it.
It's also very true.
Vic Sagerquist
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:15:40 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then
>>shouted:
>>
>>This post contains some real jewels. Eenie meenie miney moe, I
>>nominate this quote by Duke:
>>
>>> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is
>>> without error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest
>>> being the words of men), and God came eons before some pagan
>>> rituals.
>>
>>Seconds?
>
> I second it, I second it.
>
> It's also very true.
Duke, you have to be an atheist to play. Besides, it ain't couth to second
the nomination of your own quote...
duke
>>>Since you can make hell exist just by believing in it, I can make it
>>>go away by not believing in it.
>> Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one totally void
>> of the love of God.
>According to the Baptists it's fire and brimstone. Who's right? Like I
>said before, there are as many different versions of afterlife as there are
>religions, and each one asserts it is the one true religion. Hogwash.
Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation to face. But people like you
gleefully look forward to it. Crazy.
>> And it's your choice, that's the crazy part.
>Yup. I choose none.
Crazy.
>>>And I believe there is no such thing as a soul, or anything spiritual,
>>>including any spiritual plane. What you perceive is what you get.
>>>It's a nice comfy dream, though. Enjoy it while you're alive if it
>>>makes you happy.
>> Believing and existing are two different things. Disbelieve all you
>> wish.
>Hahahahhhaaaa! Doesn't that make you dizzy?
Nope. You elect to face it as your choice. I'm trying to avoid it.
>> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without
>> error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest being the
>> words of men), and God came eons before some pagan rituals.
>You're killing me! Your entire worldview is a logical fallacy!
There's that silly word again - logical. Like man's logic is superior to God's logic.
You and I don't get a vote.
>> So what if 4 guys weren't of the 500+? 500+ witnessed and
>> participated in it.
>You miss the point. The "4 guys" made up the 500+ witnesses.
Nope, far far too many people learned of and grew out of the 500+ before the facts were
placed in writing by the 4 Gospel writers.
If there wasn't growing evidence and belief by real, live, breathing men in the 30-160
years later that the Gospels were finally put pencil to paper, the "facts" would have
fallen by the wayside as all fake.
>> You think history books are written by witnesses?
No answer?
>>>> The brain and the soul are two different things. The creator of the
>>>> universe can do that, you know.
>>>No I don't know, but I do know you cannot demonstrate this.
>> Of course I can't demonstrate it. Nor can you for your position.
>Then why dwell on it?
God told me.
>> But both of us will find out for sure one day. I'm in a win/no win
>> position. You're in a lose/no win position.
>Pascal's Wager.
Nope.
>>>> Me: win (hopefully)/no win. You: lose/no win. No win comes into
>>>> play if there is no almighty God.
>>>Pascal's Wager. It's not very convincing to see you keep supporting
>>>your assertions with this.
>> Nope, it's not Pascal's wager. The PW is an actual wager on how real
>> people would bet money. The premise of the PW, though, is rock solid.
No response?
>> If God does exist, you lose, I win (hopefully). If he doesn't, both
>> of us face a "no win".
>I give up. Teaching logic to a christer is like trying to cut an anvil
>with a plastic knife.
Your problem is that you actually think human logic is the endall. You actually believe
that the universe was always there even though science says otherwise. Or that it created
itself.
Icarus
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:06:35 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Since you can make hell exist just by believing in it, I
>>>> can make it go away by not believing in it.
>>>
>>> Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one
>>> totally void of the love of God.
>
>> According to the Baptists it's fire and brimstone. Who's
>> right? Like I said before, there are as many different
>> versions of afterlife as there are religions, and each one
>> asserts it is the one true religion. Hogwash.
>
> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation
> to face. But people like you gleefully look forward to it.
> Crazy.
You'll simply cease to exist. That may very well be something to look
forward to. Better than an afterlife of infinite boredom, at least.
<big snip>...
Vic Sagerquist
> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation to face.
> But people like you gleefully look forward to it. Crazy.
Duke, you don't seem to realize. 50 completely different versions of the
same story render the story highly questionable, and most likely false.
DianaC
>
> > Taking the above comment out of context is pretty
> > stupid.
>
> You said something stupid, and I didn't take it out of context.
>
> > I get it. Imposing your culture on others isn't imposing your culture on
> > others if your culture is the correct one.
>
> No you don't. I don't want to impose culture, I want to impose Reason.
Same thing.
> If you don't know the difference, then maybe you should finally
> go back and repeat middle and high school.
One man's reason is....
But you need to take your egocentric view of the universe and go talk to a
couple of sociologists about what 'culture' is.
Douglas Berry
was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:15:40
-0500 by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
>on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
>
>This post contains some real jewels. Eenie meenie miney moe, I nominate
>this quote by Duke:
>
>> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without
>> error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest being the
>> words of men), and God came eons before some pagan rituals.
>
>Seconds?
Seconded.
At this point, can't we elect Duke to the Hall of Lame and be done
with him?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Moose
> Your problem is that you actually think human logic is the endall. You
> actually believe
> that the universe was always there even though science says otherwise. Or
> that it created itself.
...and you actually believe silly stories, written by men, where an
all-powerful being "loves" his creations so much that he causes them death
and disease for millions of generations for the mistake of one? ...where
people rise from graves?? walk on water???
That's as crazy as my mother, who believed that she was visited by space
aliens and taken up to the mother ship for surgical operations. It
explained the hard lumps under her flesh, which turned out to be cancer,
not alien implants. Cancer, created by your loving do-gooder god, btw.
I'll take common sense over that god idea of yours every time, thank you.
Moose
duke
>> Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one totally void
>> of the love of God.
>After seeing "the love of God" here on Earth, the less of it, the
>better. Death from famine, earthquake, monsoon, starvation, disease,
>Bush, and a thousand other causes, straight from God.
No, that's the mistake you keep making. But that's your problem. God allows these things
to happen just as he allowed A&E to say no to him, and as a result of saying "no" to him.
But, your drive to commit spiritual suicide is your problem, not mine. For I believe.
>> And it's your choice, that's the crazy part.
>And I choose sanity.
Yet your real problem is choosing insanity thru gleeful ignorance.
>> Believing and existing are two different things. Disbelieve all you
>> wish.
>"Believing and existing are two different things." Perhaps the first
>truth you've uttered. Too bad you can't understand it.
I gleefully believe. It's me, it's what I believe, it's what I want, it's an eternity of
sharing in the glory of God.
>You are wrong.
Not a chance.
> The God of Christianity is self-contradictory. It's
>different charateristics conflict with each other and with the observed
>state of the universe. Could *some* god exist? I can argue that, but
>it depends on how such a god is defined. But there is no doubt that the
>god of Christianity is a logical impossibility.
ONly in the vast tiny spaces in the 6 inches between your ears.
>And this is entirely irrelevant, as there is no evidence for the
>non-existence of ANYTHING that could exist but does not. That is why
>you must supply the evidence for your proposal.
Have it your way. It's your funeral, not mine.
>> So what if 4 guys weren't of the 500+? 500+ witnessed and
>> participated in it.
>And they aren't talking. We don't know what they witnessed, if they
>witnessed anything at all, if they ever existed.
They told others, and jotted some of it down, who told others who told others who told
others, until here we are today some 2 billion believers live and breath this factual
evidence. It was all a fake, it would have died off quickly 2000 years ago.
>> You think history books are written by witnesses?
>Some of them are. The Egyptians wrote their history on their walls.
>The Romans too, as well as on paper, coins, statues, and buildings.
Forget "some". Do you believe history was written by eye witnesses?
Chipping history into stone walls and on coins, statues, buildings took hundreds of years
to prepare - your very complaint about the biblical events declaring the biblical events
as non-truth. Make up your mind.
>"I can't demonstrate A, but since you can't disprove it A, A is proven."
> Stupid, stupid, stupid. "I don't know" is a better answer when you
>don't know.
Then God exists by your very argument.
>> But both of us will find out for sure one day. I'm in a win/no win
>> position. You're in a lose/no win position.
>No, we will not. We will be dead. Your lame phrasing of Pascal's wager
>is evidence of nothing but your own muddled thinking, your
>rationialization of what you believe.
Sorry, not a shred of evidence to support that stupid idea. No one has gone to the other
side and come back, except Christ of course.
>> Nope, it's not Pascal's wager. The PW is an actual wager on how real
>> people would bet money. The premise of the PW, though, is rock solid.
>Which god should one bet on? Why? Because YOU say so? Aside from the
>fact that you lie continuously and you are stupid, appeals to authority
>are invalid.
Almighty God. He is the only one.
>> If God does exist, you lose, I win (hopefully). If he doesn't, both
>> of us face a "no win".
>Hurry up and see your god. If it's so great, why are you waiting? Die
>now and leave us in peace.
I'm trying to save you from an eternity of agony.
duke
>> So what if 4 guys weren't of the 500+? 500+ witnessed and participated in
>> it.
>> You think history books are written by witnesses?
>No, 500 witnessed nothing.
Wishfull dreaming on your part.
>Mark says jesus appeared to his apostles hiding
>in Jerusalem, upbraided them, and then and there
>ascenced to heaven.
The glorified Lord appeared to his disciples again 40 days after his resurrection prior to
ascending to the Father.
>Matthew says the apostles were told to meet him
>in Galilee and did.
40 days.
>In both contradictory accounts, no 40 days in
>Jerusalem, as per Acts, no 500 witnesses to nuthin'.
One of the tests for truth is lack of repetition in every detail. If everyone agreed down
to the last detail, they were copied.
>Just a pack of liars writing books of lies is all.
Better luck next time, barwell.
anne marie hovgaard
> on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:19:20 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> > <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>Matthew 5:22 says you are in danger of hellfire.
> >>> Psalm 14
> >>> 1 The fool [1] says in his heart, "There is no God."
> >>> Your point?
>
> >>Hmmmm. Let's assign equal weight to both verses. Is it safe to
> >>assume then, that the bible says it's ok to think "fool", but you just
> >>can't say it? :-)
> >
> > Nope, it means that the circumstance is what counts.
> >
> >>Since you can make hell exist just by believing in it, I can make it
> >>go away by not believing in it.
> >
> > Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one totally void
> > of the love of God.
>
> According to the Baptists it's fire and brimstone.
churches I've seen, it's an S/M dungeon ;)
Jez
Or having to spend it with a bunch of fucking Christians !
That would be hell !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Skype callto://hellward
Jez
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:50:16 GMT, Enkidu <enk...@leaddogs.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hell is an eternity of aimless, loveless wandering - one totally void
>>>of the love of God.
>
>
>>After seeing "the love of God" here on Earth, the less of it, the
>>better. Death from famine, earthquake, monsoon, starvation, disease,
>>Bush, and a thousand other causes, straight from God.
>
>
> No, that's the mistake you keep making. But that's your problem. God allows these things
> to happen just as he allowed A&E to say no to him, and as a result of saying "no" to him.
A&E I like that.........'Accident and Emergency' !
:)
Warble606
> But you need to take your egocentric view of the universe and go talk to a
> couple of sociologists about what 'culture' is.
Actually it's not a sociologist but an anthropologist who defines
culture.
duke
>>>Seconds?
>> I second it, I second it.
>> It's also very true.
>Duke, you have to be an atheist to play. Besides, it ain't couth to second
>the nomination of your own quote...
Truth is as truth is. I second it.
*nemo*
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Sorry, mon. You don't qualify to participate, other than as a supplier
of nominated material.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
*nemo*
Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
> In our last thrilling episode, Vic Sagerquist <add...@withheld.com>
> was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:15:40
> -0500 by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
> >on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
> >
> >This post contains some real jewels. Eenie meenie miney moe, I nominate
> >this quote by Duke:
> >
> >> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is without
> >> error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest being the
> >> words of men), and God came eons before some pagan rituals.
> >
> >Seconds?
>
> Seconded.
Recorded.
>
> At this point, can't we elect Duke to the Hall of Lame and be done
> with him?
"Hall of Lame." I like the idea. Very cool title. But it's not my
department...
Mike Painter
> In article <mdv9k01vs5aqqlqup...@4ax.com>,
> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> In our last thrilling episode, Vic Sagerquist <add...@withheld.com>
>> was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Sun, 12 Sep 2004
>> 14:15:40 -0500 by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
>>> on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then
>>> shouted:
>>>
>>> This post contains some real jewels. Eenie meenie miney moe, I
>>> nominate this quote by Duke:
>>>
>>>> There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, the bible is
>>>> without error when it comes to the revealed word of God (the rest
>>>> being the words of men), and God came eons before some pagan
>>>> rituals.
>>>
>>> Seconds?
>>
>> Seconded.
>
> Recorded.
>>
>> At this point, can't we elect Duke to the Hall of Lame and be done
>> with him?
>
> "Hall of Lame." I like the idea. Very cool title. But it's not my
> department...
A nearby town newspaper has a "Best of Chico" award edition every year. A
few years ago they eliminated those businesses that always won and just
mention them.
I think Earl deserves a "Worst of" award of some type.
Hall of LAme is good but a masochist of the year award is also in line.
I've seen small children go along with such ridicule and contempt as long as
it gains them attention. Adults who do this are "interesting"
Over 60, low self esteem, and goes to masses for children.
Nah, he says he does not wnt to be a priest.
But I hope they watch him.
DianaC
Would you care to tell me what your field of specialty is? I don't think it
has much to do with human culture and communications.
stoney
>
> "stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
> news:10k8sr8...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Vic Sagerquist wrote:
>>
>> {piggybacking}
>>
>> > on 10 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then
>> > shouted:
>> >
>> >> On 10 Sep 2004 08:06:33 -0700, warb...@yahoo.com (Warble606)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Since none of the religious people can prove that their god(s)
>> >>>exist,
>> >>
>> >> Nor can you prove that he doesn't,
>> >
>> >
>> > Ahhh, but we don't have to.
>>
>> Been there. Done that.
>>
> STONEY!!!
>
> WELCOME BACK!!!
Thank yea, kindly, gracious lady.
How's your recovery coming along?
(jumping rope and running marathons yet?)
Vic Sagerquist
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:00:50 -0400, wbarwell
> <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>
>>> So what if 4 guys weren't of the 500+? 500+ witnessed and
>>> participated in it.
>>> You think history books are written by witnesses?
>
>>No, 500 witnessed nothing.
>
> Wishfull dreaming on your part.
Why would someone dream and wish for eternal nothingness? It would
personally give me great pleasure, joy and glee to embrace eternal life
after death. But the truth of the matter is that afterlife is nothing
but a dream by the wishful, and death as the end of life is simple
reality.
The fact of the matter is there is no evidence for any kind of life after
death, so one must be content to rely on the hearsay of others, whether
it be written in a book, or repeated upon the pulpit. This is usually
fine for those weak-willed enough not to care to think for themselves.
But some of us are strong enough to see through the smoke screen, and
filter the bullshit.
It may be my funeral, but not until I'm done living.
DianaC
Nope, but....
wait for this...
I'm wearing HIGH HEELS for the first time in two years. (Grin)
Better than a marathon!!
duke
>> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation
>> to face. But people like you gleefully look forward to it.
>> Crazy.
>You'll simply cease to exist. That may very well be something to look
>forward to. Better than an afterlife of infinite boredom, at least.
Nobody has ever gone to the other side and come back to talk about it, except Jesus of
course.
Your body dies, your soul lives on - in heaven or hell - for all eternity. You soul will
live for all eternity - which way will you choose now?
duke
>on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
>
>> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation to face.
>> But people like you gleefully look forward to it. Crazy.
>Duke, you don't seem to realize. 50 completely different versions of the
>same story render the story highly questionable, and most likely false.
It's like that because nobody knows for sure. So why would it be false rather than true?
duke
>> No, that's the mistake you keep making. But that's your problem. God allows these things
>> to happen just as he allowed A&E to say no to him, and as a result of saying "no" to him.
>A&E I like that.........'Accident and Emergency' !
Well, I know them as Adam and Eve, but accident and emergency fit just as well.
•R.L.Measures
warb...@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:
• A succinct definition of Muslim culture is: excision -- of prepuces,
clitorises, labias, and craniums.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Jez
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:59:46 +0100, "Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation
>>>to face. But people like you gleefully look forward to it.
>>>Crazy.
>
>
>>You'll simply cease to exist. That may very well be something to look
>>forward to. Better than an afterlife of infinite boredom, at least.
>
>
> Nobody has ever gone to the other side and come back to talk about it, except Jesus of
> course.
Don't you find that odd ?
Didn't he have any friends he could show the trick to ?
Warble606
You can't win the argument, therefore you're resorting to
personal attacks. Coward.
JessHC
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:34:21 -0500, Vic Sagerquist <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
> >
> >> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation to face.
> >> But people like you gleefully look forward to it. Crazy.
>
> >Duke, you don't seem to realize. 50 completely different versions of the
> >same story render the story highly questionable, and most likely false.
>
> It's like that because nobody knows for sure.
And yet, everybody keeps insisting that theirs is the one correct
interpretation. At the very most, there can only be one correct
interpretation; more likely, they're all incorrect.
> So why would it be false rather than true?
You mean, "why would it be true, rather than false?" Because at best
only one can be correct, and when there are hundreds being bandied
about, the odds are you've chosen the wrong one. Which assumes there
is a true one to be chosen; you haven't established that, you've
merely asserted it.
JessHC
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:59:46 +0100, "Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation
> >> to face. But people like you gleefully look forward to it.
> >> Crazy.
>
> >You'll simply cease to exist. That may very well be something to look
> >forward to. Better than an afterlife of infinite boredom, at least.
>
> Nobody has ever gone to the other side and come back to talk about it,
> except Jesus of course.
And of course it's easy for imaginary people like Jesus to do all
sorts of things.
> Your body dies, your soul lives on - in heaven or hell - for all eternity.
> You soul will live for all eternity - which way will you choose now?
What's a 'soul'? Please demonstrate how this undefined 'soul' you're
claiming exists can survive physical death, or why, when someone has
been dead for a short while and then revived, their soul hasn't flown
the coop. Please present one example of a known living entity that
has been demonstrated to 'live for all eternity.'
Albert
So, what *is* your field of specialty? I don't think it
has much to do with human culture and communications either. And
how is making a judgment based on previous posts a personal attack?
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
Moose
> Well, I know them as Adam and Eve, but accident and emergency fit just as
> well.
Funny, but I thought of it as Arts & Entertainment, as in the A&E network on
TV, and it fit well, too.
Vic Sagerquist
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:59:46 +0100, "Icarus" <icar...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation
>>> to face. But people like you gleefully look forward to it.
>>> Crazy.
>
>>You'll simply cease to exist. That may very well be something to look
>>forward to. Better than an afterlife of infinite boredom, at least.
>
> Nobody has ever gone to the other side and come back to talk about it,
> except Jesus of course.
Funny how make-believe people can do that, isn't it?
<snip>
Vic Sagerquist
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:34:21 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>on 12 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, then
>>shouted:
>>
>>> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation to
>>> face. But people like you gleefully look forward to it. Crazy.
>
>>Duke, you don't seem to realize. 50 completely different versions of
>>the same story render the story highly questionable, and most likely
>>false.
>
> It's like that because nobody knows for sure. So why would it be
> false rather than true?
Because if you don't believe in it, you can punch holes in it the size of
Texas.
stoney
eerrrrrrr.....aren't three metre heels going a bit overboard?
> Better than a marathon!!
/doctor smith
"oh, the pain...the pain."
Icarus
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:59:46 +0100, "Icarus"
> <icar...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't matter who is right. It's not a desirable situation
>>> to face. But people like you gleefully look forward to it.
>>> Crazy.
>
>> You'll simply cease to exist. That may very well be
>> something to look forward to. Better than an afterlife of
>> infinite boredom, at least.
>
> Nobody has ever gone to the other side and come back to talk
> about it, except Jesus of course.
Except that there is no 'other side'... It's just a human fantasy,
like Santa Claus's toy factory.
> Your body dies, your soul lives on - in heaven or hell - for
> all eternity.
Your body is all there is of you, so when it dies, that's the end of
you. That's really all there is to it.
> You soul will live for all eternity - which
> way will you choose now?
There's no such thing, so no choice to be made.
DianaC
"Warble606" <warb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d62b9bc.04091...@posting.google.com...
> "DianaC" <dian...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<Znr1d.7736$iS2.6879@trnddc09>...
> > "Warble606" <warb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4d62b9bc.04091...@posting.google.com...
> > > "DianaC" <dian...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<9%51d.2003
> > >
> > > > But you need to take your egocentric view of the universe and go
talk to
> > a
> > > > couple of sociologists about what 'culture' is.
> > >
> > > Actually it's not a sociologist but an anthropologist who defines
> > > culture.
> >
> > Would you care to tell me what your field of specialty is? I don't think
it
> > has much to do with human culture and communications.
>
> You can't win the argument, therefore you're resorting to
> personal attacks. Coward.
Not a personal attack. An honest question. Y'see, I am an English and
Communications major in college, and the classes I've recently taken have
defined 'culture' in several different ways. Some of them are quite
contradictory.
From this I learned that before you can talk about a concept, you have to
know what the other guy's POV is.
Since my field of specialty IS human culture and communications, I address
the issue from that viewpoint. So, since your definition seems to be quite
different from mine, I'm noting that, and asking you what your specialty IS.
Trust me, bub, if I wanted to attack you personally, you'd know it.
DianaC
> DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
> >
> > I'm wearing HIGH HEELS for the first time in two years. (Grin)
>
> eerrrrrrr.....aren't three metre heels going a bit overboard?
Metres? Is THAT why I need the ladder to get in them? I thought they were
three inches. DAMN those metrics. (grumble) they should stick to inches and
feet and yards like reasonable people, MUCH easier to figure.
(mumble)
Warble606
> how is making a judgment based on previous posts a personal attack?
Bark little doggy, bark.
Albert
The reply of an illiterate child. LOL.
Albert
takes any challenge to a resonable debate as an attack on his
intelligence.
duke
>> Nobody has ever gone to the other side and come back to talk
>> about it, except Jesus of course.
>Except that there is no 'other side'... It's just a human fantasy,
>like Santa Claus's toy factory.
Like I said, no body has come back to talk about it, except Jesus of course.
>> Your body dies, your soul lives on - in heaven or hell - for
>> all eternity.
>Your body is all there is of you, so when it dies, that's the end of
>you. That's really all there is to it.
Like you have any idea what happens next. But you go right ahead and reject it. It's
your decision re spiritual suicide
>> You soul will live for all eternity - which
>> way will you choose now?
>There's no such thing, so no choice to be made.
Remember your final salute is coming up..
duke
>>>Duke, you don't seem to realize. 50 completely different versions of
>>>the same story render the story highly questionable, and most likely
>>>false.
>> It's like that because nobody knows for sure. So why would it be
>> false rather than true?
>Because if you don't believe in it, you can punch holes in it the size of
>Texas.
But as you don't believe in it, the holes are imaginary.
duke
>>>No, 500 witnessed nothing.
>> Wishfull dreaming on your part.
>Why would someone dream and wish for eternal nothingness?
I can't imagine. It's just all part of wishing it away. That doesn't work.
> It would
>personally give me great pleasure, joy and glee to embrace eternal life
>after death. But the truth of the matter is that afterlife is nothing
>but a dream by the wishful, and death as the end of life is simple
>reality.
Sorry, but the truth of the matter is that you don't know what comes next.
>The fact of the matter is there is no evidence for any kind of life after
>death,
Christ is the evidence. You do understand, don't you, that he showed us the way - love of
the Father (Mat 25:31-46), repentance of sin, carrying our own cross, death of the body,
buried, rise gloriously for all eternity.
You do understand that's what Christianity is all about, don't you?
JessHC
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:49:11 GMT, Vic Sagerquist <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >>>No, 500 witnessed nothing.
> >> Wishfull dreaming on your part.
>
> >Why would someone dream and wish for eternal nothingness?
>
> I can't imagine.
Put that on the long list of things you can't imagine.
> It's just all part of wishing it away.
No, that would be christianity. "Death scares me. Therefore, I'll
pretend there's a life after death so that I won't really be dead, and
there'll be a big strong daddy to protect me forever."
Oooh, look at that: fear of death wished away.
> That doesn't work.
You say that, but you don't mean it.
> > It would
> >personally give me great pleasure, joy and glee to embrace eternal life
> >after death. But the truth of the matter is that afterlife is nothing
> >but a dream by the wishful, and death as the end of life is simple
> >reality.
>
> Sorry, but the truth of the matter is that you don't know what comes next.
That's right. And neither do you. Unfortunately, there's absolutely
no evidence known that supports your fantasy. All we know is that
nobody has ever come back.
> >The fact of the matter is there is no evidence for any kind of life after
> >death,
>
> Christ is the evidence.
In exactly the same way that Harry Potter is evidence for witchcraft.
> You do understand, don't you, that he showed us the way - love of
> the Father (Mat 25:31-46), repentance of sin, carrying our own cross,
> death of the body, buried, rise gloriously for all eternity.
That's just a story, and you only believe the parts of the story that
don't inconvenience you, like all those nasty bits requiring the death
of people who violate some arcane law that doesn't actually affect
anyone. Why don't you just say, "Thank you for your sacrifice, Jesus,
but I want to take responsibility for my own sins"? Boom, you're
carrying your own cross, rather than letting someone else do it for
you.
> You do understand that's what Christianity is all about, don't you?
That's one of the many claims, yes. You do understand that Harry
Potter is all about magic, don't you?
JessHC
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:22:35 -0500, Vic Sagerquist <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Duke, you don't seem to realize. 50 completely different versions of
> >>>the same story render the story highly questionable, and most likely
> >>>false.
> >> It's like that because nobody knows for sure. So why would it be
> >> false rather than true?
>
> >Because if you don't believe in it, you can punch holes in it the size of
> >Texas.
>
> But as you don't believe in it, the holes are imaginary.
The holes are real, it's the story that's imaginary. That's usually
how imaginary stories are; full of holes. It's an artifact of being
imaginary, since when things are made up they often don't correspond
to reality or possibility.
Christopher A. Lee
They think they're talking about something real while we're treating
it as an abstract logic exercise.
Because it's real to them there has to be something wrong with our
logic because it doesn't work.
Rather like a kid who hasn't yet reached the level of math to know you
can't divide by zero, who can't see the errors in a "proof" that 1 = 2
but he knows it's wrong.
Vic Sagerquist
>>It would personally give me great pleasure, joy and glee to embrace
>>eternal
>>life after death. But the truth of the matter is that afterlife is
>>nothing but a dream by the wishful, and death as the end of life is
>>simple reality.
>
> Sorry, but the truth of the matter is that you don't know what comes
> next.
I also don't make up fantasy stories with people floating around in the
sky, godmen feeding the poor with magic, and all the claptrap, guilt and
loss of income that goes along with it.
>
>>The fact of the matter is there is no evidence for any kind of life
>>after death,
>
> Christ is the evidence.
Hahahaha! Your story is evidence of itself? You're begging the question
here.
> You do understand, don't you, that he showed
> us the way - love of the Father (Mat 25:31-46), repentance of sin,
> carrying our own cross, death of the body, buried, rise gloriously for
> all eternity.
So the story goes. I don't believe the story because there is no evidence
OUTSIDE of the story that backs it up.
>
> You do understand that's what Christianity is all about, don't you?
I know what Christianity is all about. I also know what Santa Claus, the
Easter Bunny and Harry Potter are all about. To tell you the truth, I like
the other stories better. Santa Claus never threatened me with eternal
punishment if I was bad. The Easter Bunny never taught my children to hate
people that are not exactly like them. And Harry Potter doesn't require me
to kiss his ass every Sunday.
Warble606
> You might as well apologize now.
DianeC = Albert = pathological public masturbationist. Good try, kid.
sto...@the.net
wrote:
>
>"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
>news:10kelnl...@corp.supernews.com...
>> DianaC wrote:
><snip to>
>
>> >
>> > I'm wearing HIGH HEELS for the first time in two years. (Grin)
>>
>> eerrrrrrr.....aren't three metre heels going a bit overboard?
>
>Metres?
Yep.
> Is THAT why I need the ladder to get in them?
Yes, the salesperson lied.
> I thought they were
>three inches. DAMN those metrics. (grumble) they should stick to inches and
>feet and yards like reasonable people, MUCH easier to figure.
>
>(mumble)
I heard that!.......
DianaC
>
>> You might as well apologize now.
>
> DianeC = Albert = pathological public masturbationist. Good try, kid.
Welp, that catagorizes your level of credibility and any possibility of
future civil debates as somewhere between a paper clip and a pissed off
chihuahua.
DianaC
<sto...@the.net> wrote in message
news:qjlhk0l9s49fk3so1...@4ax.com...
(snicker)
One of these days, Stoney....one of these days....I'm actually going to one
up you. ;-) I'll have to study for a long time...and probably be gifted
with a mental capability that I seem to be losing faster than I can find,
but SOME day....