^^ You! just !may be a fundamentalist atheist if....^^
adman
You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause, and
leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all
obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
"obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to
have been forged in the 14th.
You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
it mentions "the creator".
When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then history
is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to
prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot
be trusted.
You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of
war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II,
Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
probably no hell either.
You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the
flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort
her baby.
You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
homosexuals.
You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but
homosexuals are born that way.
When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
shelves.
If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason
when reading The Bible.
You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
DanielSan
> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause, and
> leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
They all have the same amount of evidence as gods.
>
>
> You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all
> obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
> "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
> apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
Planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, are not alive.
>
> You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to
> have been forged in the 14th.
Like what?
>
> You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
> it mentions "the creator".
The DoI antedates the Constitution. It cannot be "unconstitutional".
>
> When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then history
> is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to
> prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot
> be trusted.
For example?
>
> You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of
> war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II,
> Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
No one has ever asserted that, except you.
>
> You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
> going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
> probably no hell either.
That's a Christian point of view, not atheist.
>
> You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
>
It is defaced already.
> You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the
> flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort
> her baby.
Err, you cannot abort a baby. By the way, Christians are more likely to
have abortions than any other group.
>
>
> You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
> anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
>
No atheist wants nativity scenes banned from public view.
>
> You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
> homosexuals.
>
Except, that's not true. I know of no atheist that thinks marriage is
an obsolete institution, fundy or otherwise.
> You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but
> homosexuals are born that way.
Wow. That's a new one. I've never heard that before.
>
>
> When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
> You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
> shelves.
I have never done this. Do you have any evidence that this has ever
happened?
>
> If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
>
This has never happened to me and I'm told "God Bless You" or "Bless
You" all the time when I sneeze. I think you're lying.
> Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason
> when reading The Bible.
>
Another fallacious statement.
> You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
I don't.
Are you done lying about atheists now?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
Elmer
> (snip)
> You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
> it mentions "the creator".
Bwahahaha!
The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. Maybe remedial
class in American history should be next on your to do list :-)
Andre Lieven
> adman said the following on 2/18/2008 7:03 PM:
>
> > You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> > You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause, and
> > leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
>
> They all have the same amount of evidence as gods.
Yep.
> > You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all
> > obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
> > "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
> > apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
>
> Planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, are not alive.
A bit of an important difference. Its sad that some people are too
stupid to
grasp that point.
> > You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to
> > have been forged in the 14th.
>
> Like what?
>
> > You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
> > it mentions "the creator".
>
> The DoI antedates the Constitution. It cannot be "unconstitutional".
Well, our little fundy fool clearly cannot even read a calendar...
> > When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then history
> > is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to
> > prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot
> > be trusted.
>
> For example?
The widdle fundy fool also doesn't get that his " point " applies
equally to the
bible...
> > You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of
> > war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II,
> > Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
>
> No one has ever asserted that, except you.
Well, religious wars and upheavals killed on a mostly ongoing basis.
But,
as to the question of which killed more, thats an open question.
One might suggest that some of the recent civil wars have a religious
component, such as in the former Yugoslavia.
> > You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
> > going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
> > probably no hell either.
>
> That's a Christian point of view, not atheist.
Well, we don't believe in either god nor hell.
> > You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
>
> It is defaced already.
For a bit over 50 years now, in the US...
> > You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the
> > flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort
> > her baby.
>
> Err, you cannot abort a baby. By the way, Christians are more likely to
> have abortions than any other group.
So much for that " religion equals better morality " lie...
> > You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
> > anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
>
> No atheist wants nativity scenes banned from public view.
I've seen suggestions that they not be placed on public lands/spaces,
but that theres no issue with them being on private lands/spaces, and
religiously owned ones.
> > You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
> > homosexuals.
>
> Except, that's not true. I know of no atheist that thinks marriage is
> an obsolete institution, fundy or otherwise.
I rather go the other way, in fact. I oppose most of the modern social
trends that have diminished the meaning of marriage. Just for non
religious reasons, though.
> > You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but
> > homosexuals are born that way.
>
> Wow. That's a new one. I've never heard that before.
Me, neither. In fact, my view that pretty much anyone can become an
atheist
is quite the opposite of what the fundy fool is claiming.
> > When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
> > You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
> > shelves.
>
> I have never done this. Do you have any evidence that this has ever
> happened?
Well, my personal copies of the bible are in my personal home
library's fiction
section. But, thats as far as that goes. Though, I will confess that I
have, from
time to time, turned Ann Coulter books in stores backside facing.
> > If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
>
> This has never happened to me and I'm told "God Bless You" or "Bless
> You" all the time when I sneeze. I think you're lying.
I use several versions, usually a shorter " bless you " or
"ghesuntheit ".
> > Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason
> > when reading The Bible.
>
> Another fallacious statement.
While I admit that I often finds bits of the bible to be funny when I
read them,
I don;t find them funny enough to, say, spew a drink. That reaction
needs a
Robin Williams class bit, and the writers of the bible weren't that
good.
> > You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
>
> I don't.
For those who work(ed) retail, its kinda hard to work Christmas Day...
> Are you done lying about atheists now?
That was a rhetorical question, right ?
Andre
adman
"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:T%ruj.4431$Sa1....@news02.roc.ny...
Read it again drunk
"You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
it mentions "the creator".
Maybe the word "BECAUSE" was too hard for you
Uncle Vic
> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause,
> and leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
Sky pixels? Hahahahaha!
>
>
> You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were
> "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more
> complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems
> the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it
> was not designed.
So you posit an infinitely *more* complex designer, one who has always
existed, one we are probably incapable of understanding. Who is more
foolish? The fool who makes up this shit, or the fool who follows him?
>
> You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th
> century to have been forged in the 14th.
What???
<snip remainder of inane bullshit>
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
adman
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:ef5b064e-5aed-4303...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You have no opinion of your own except to agree with others?
Ctrl_Atl_Delete
Uncle Vic
Maybe you think the word "unconstitutional" has something to do with some
document other than the Constitution, which was yet to be written at the
time the Declaration was drafted. Much the same way the shooting of
President Lincoln was not a scenario outlawed by the USA Patriot Act.
adman
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A48C86E...@207.115.33.102...
| One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote:
|
| > You may be a fundy atheist if....
| >
| > You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause,
| > and leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
|
| Sky pixels? Hahahahaha!
|
| >
| >
| > You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were
| > "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more
| > complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems
| > the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it
| > was not designed.
|
| So you posit an infinitely *more* complex designer, one who has always
| existed, one we are probably incapable of understanding. Who is more
| foolish? The fool who makes up this shit, or the fool who follows him?
|
| >
| > You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th
| > century to have been forged in the 14th.
|
| What???
|
| <snip remainder of inane bullshit>
gee, the truth hurt so bad you gave up and cut the rest out!
Diäbloë *~ ®
"adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:wfsuj.104229$L%6.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/01/31/local_news/doc47a2324aaf46e080288013.txt
RACINE - A man allegedly threatened to injure and kill his wife after
an all-day argument over religion.
The man, 30, is charged with substantial battery, first-degree
recklessly endangering safety, false imprisonment and intimidating a
witness. If convicted, he could face up to $40,000 in fines and 35
years imprisonment. The Journal Times is not naming the man to protect
the identity of his wife and daughter.
---------------------
Yep, that vaunted Jehovah Witness Watchtower moral superiority
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=510741&in_page_id=1879
Escape from a living hell: The horrifying moment my Jehovah's Witness
foster mother handed me over to a sex predator
Last updated at 08:30am on 1st February 2008
Comments Comments (16)
Alloma Gilbert
Alloma is now looking forward to the future
In April 2007, foster mother Eunice Spry was sentenced to 14 years in
prison for abusing children in her care. She beat the youngsters with
metal bars and made them eat vomit. On Saturday, in our first extract
from a new memoir, one of Spry's victims, ALLOMA GILBERT, revealed how
she survived her ordeal. Here, in the final part, she describes how
Spry allowed her to be sexually abused - and the bitter-sweet moment
her tormentor was brought to justice...
DanielSan
Makes me wonder why adman is ignoring my posts. Truth hurt THAT bad
that adman cannot even RESPOND to my posts? ;-)
cactus
> adman said the following on 2/18/2008 7:51 PM:
>> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A48C86E...@207.115.33.102...
>> | One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>> |
>> | > You may be a fundy atheist if....
>> | >
>> | > You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause,
>> | > and leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
>> |
>> | Sky pixels? Hahahahaha!
>> |
>> | >
>> | >
>> | > You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were
>> | > "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more
>> | > complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems
>> | > the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it
>> | > was not designed.
>> |
>> | So you posit an infinitely *more* complex designer, one who has always
>> | existed, one we are probably incapable of understanding. Who is more
>> | foolish? The fool who makes up this shit, or the fool who follows him?
>> |
>> | >
>> | > You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th
>> | > century to have been forged in the 14th.
>> |
>> | What???
>> |
>> | <snip remainder of inane bullshit>
>>
>> gee, the truth hurt so bad you gave up and cut the rest out!
>>
>>
>>
>
> Makes me wonder why adman is ignoring my posts. Truth hurt THAT bad
> that adman cannot even RESPOND to my posts? ;-)
>
he is, he stops responding. He hasn't responded to me in weeks when I
pointed out a couple of spelling errors.
He seems very touchy, and like most JWs has to be right all the time.
So take it as a compliment when he runs away from you. He just can't
handle it.
Uncle Vic
Stupidity is what hurts, and I refused to subject myself to any more of
it.
parsi...@gmail.com
> You may be a fundy atheist if....
Does not exist.
Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby? Can you be passionate about "not
collecting stamps"?
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
>
> You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
Why the hell would I take Halloween off work?
Anyway, you don't get classed as fundy theist until you start
projectile spittling while ranting, and probably start shooting at
people or suicide bombing. Strikes me as a double standard on that
fundamentalist label.
Fundy Muslim might poke your eyes out for looking at his wife, and
that's OK, 'cos it's his religion. "Fundy" atheist might tell you
something you didn't want to know about the history of your precious
book. Um... just a little bit different.
Al
Don't make me turn into a fundy atheist instead of a "fundy" atheist
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
>
>
> obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
> "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
> apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
What you fail to notice is that planes and computers don't reproduce.
And quite frankly, yes. Beyond a certain point, comlpexity goes
beyond credibility for design.
> You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
> it mentions "the creator".
Hate to tell you, but atheists in Australia don't give a flyin fukc
about your sepo poems.
> When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then history
> is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to
> prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot
> be trusted.
lol, I've seen those "real historical scholarship" cites. That's a
good one. rofl
> You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
> going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
> probably no hell either.
Rubbish. People believe in gawds for a variety of reasons, the most
common one, being lied to about it by their parents.
> You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
WTF? Is this another Sepo thing?
> You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the
> flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort
> her baby.
Foetus. No-ones suggesting killing babies for health reasons.
> You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
> anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
No, I think public money shouldn't go towards religious displays and
that pornography should be restricted. Which planet are you on, by
the way?
>
> You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
> homosexuals.
No, marriage is a human convention that predates religion and has it's
roots in early primate behaviour. The legal rights afforded to
married couples should be made available to non-conventional partners.
> You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but
> homosexuals are born that way.
No. Gender roles are NOT culturally sourced. Weird arse new-age
cultists and hippies think Xtians are somehow responsible for
patriarchy.
> When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
No, I don't actually, I leave them in the sub-section of fiction they
start in "Religion".
> You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
> shelves.
Rubbish book, definately fiction, but clearly is where you get your
ideas of atheists from.
>
> If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
No, I don't, I say "Fuck you very much". But that's just me. It's
not every atheist.
> Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason
> when reading The Bible.
Good thing I don't read the piece of shit book then.!
Al
Sanity's Little Helper
news:QFruj.104202$L%6.3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net to alt.atheism on 19
Feb 2008:
> You may be a fundy atheist
Nobody is a fundamentalist atheist. Atheism is purely about not believing
in God/any gods. That's it. Zippo else.
Trouble is: You godbotherers can't keep your stupidity and ignorance to
yourselves like you know you should. Rather than slink into a corner and
just be ignorant and stupid, you'd rather make a virtue of it, so you
make up all sorts of strawmen and outright lies as an excuse. Actually,
atheists as you see them are your own strawmen, they are not us, and they
don't exist.
One last thing:
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
Sanity's Little Helper
news:Ymsuj.104237$L%6.8...@bignews3.bellsouth.net to alt.atheism on 19
Feb 2008:
>
Well, YOU never reply to any substantive answers to your bullshit,
because you don't like to acknowledge when you have been caught lying
and talking out of your anus, which happens very frequently. That's why
you didn't address anything Uncle Vic wrote, and why you never reply to
MY postings at all. I reckon you have me killfiled. Bawwk! Bawwk!
Nosterill
Actually, I _am_ passionate about not collecting stamps. After a
childhood spent collecting under duress (father's idea) the sense of
release was almost as great as the revelation (in church) that
Christianity was just another mythology.
adman
"cactus" <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:85tuj.8287$5K1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Is this from a Jewish perspective?
adman
"Sanity's Little Helper" <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9A496194A...@194.177.96.26...
Reading your postings is not enough?
When you said something worth responding to, I'll respond. :)
Liz
[---]
>When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
There isn't any need. The section in which the Bibles are shelved is
titled "Religion and Mythology" in the bookstore I frequent.
Just out of curiosity, how many books do you have in your home? Do
you go to bookstores, or the library? How many books a year do you
read?
Liz #658 BAAWA
I think that naming your ignorance God and pretending that,
having named it, you have converted ignorance to knowledge
is a sorry approach to the unknown. -- John Popelish
MarkA
> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
You are CERTAINLY a reason-impaired theist if you think that any of these
statements are accurate.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
adman
Ok, that's your opinion. I do not killfile anyone because it is ok to
disagree with me.
adman
"Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alw...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:6428388b-0c08-4785...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I guess there are radicals all around.
Dave Oldridge
news:ycsuj.104227$L%6.5...@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
The declaration was a manifesto. It is NOT a part of the US
constitution.
Sheesh! You people don't even know your own history.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Dave Oldridge
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
Why do you hate truth so much?
adman
| "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote in
| news:QFruj.104202$L%6.3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net to alt.atheism on 19
| Feb 2008:
|
| > You may be a fundy atheist
|
| Nobody is a fundamentalist atheist. Atheism is purely about not believing
| in God/any gods. That's it. Zippo else.
So all of these opinions i have read are wrong? I think not. Atheism to some
seems to be a religion in and of itself based on a few select authors.
| Trouble is: You godbotherers can't keep your stupidity and ignorance to
| yourselves like you know you should. Rather than slink into a corner and
| just be ignorant and stupid, you'd rather make a virtue of it, so you
| make up all sorts of strawmen and outright lies as an excuse. Actually,
| atheists as you see them are your own strawmen, they are not us, and they
| don't exist.
I see Atheists as good honest decent people that think the notion of God is
wrong. THATS a straw man?
If my OPINION on God and my desire to discuss the concept of God with people
that do not believe in God disturbs you, ------so what. Get over yourself.
DanielSan
So, you just run away like a coward and ignore those that you cannot
converse with? You haven't responded to a single point of mine, ever.
What's the matter? Too difficult for you?
I am probably the easiest person to convince about deities. Just show
me one and I'll believe.
adman
"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02.19....@nowhere.com...
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:03:48 -0600, adman wrote:
|
| > You may be a fundy atheist if....
| >
|
| You are CERTAINLY a reason-impaired theist if you think that any of these
| statements are accurate.
Hell man. I have been told I believe in a sky pixel dozens of times! I call
THAT accurate
Smile
DanielSan
Please don't lump educated Americans (yes, we exist!) in with the
stupidity inherent in adman. Unless, by "you people", you meant idiotic
theists such as adman. :-)
Hatter
It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
You want to be covincing?
(1)Define God.
(2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
(3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
has worshipped
Until you do those three things....you are just a gibbering tribal
primitive
Hatter
DanielSan
Oh, great. Now he's going to ignore you. Welcome to the evidently
growing pantheon of folks adman is unable to answer. :-)
Christopher A. Lee
<elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>"adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote in
>news:QFruj.104202$L%6.3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net to alt.atheism on 19
>Feb 2008:
>
>> You may be a fundy atheist
>
>Nobody is a fundamentalist atheist. Atheism is purely about not believing
>in God/any gods. That's it. Zippo else.
>
>Trouble is: You godbotherers can't keep your stupidity and ignorance to
>yourselves like you know you should. Rather than slink into a corner and
>just be ignorant and stupid, you'd rather make a virtue of it, so you
>make up all sorts of strawmen and outright lies as an excuse. Actually,
>atheists as you see them are your own strawmen, they are not us, and they
>don't exist.
They think telling them where to shove the bullshit they never stop
ramming down our throats, somehow makes somebody a fundy atheist.
Mark K. Bilbo
QFruj.104202$L%6.3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et>
wrote:
> You may<SNIP>
Okay, this is just getting sad...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants
them to do because I notice it always coincides with their
own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony
Mark K. Bilbo
ycsuj.104227$L%6.5...@bignews3.bellsouth.net, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et>
wrote:
> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:T%ruj.4431$Sa1....@news02.roc.ny... | adman wrote:
> | > (snip)
> | > You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
> because
> | > it mentions "the creator".
> |
> |
> | Bwahahaha!
> |
> | The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. Maybe
> remedial
> | class in American history should be next on your to do list :-)
>
> Read it again drunk
>
> "You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
> because it mentions "the creator".
>
> Maybe the word "BECAUSE" was too hard for you
The Declaration of Independence can neither be "constitutional" nor
"unconstitutional" as it is not a law passed under this (the second, by
the way) government of the United States.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always
something to be thankful for; as for me,
I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
- H. L. Mencken
Hatter
> adman said the following on 2/18/2008 7:03 PM:
>
> > You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> > You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause, and
> > leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
>
>
and yet he seems to miss that point again and again and
again....because it is a point about Making assertations without
evidence, and proving a negative....really Logic 101 stuff
>
> > You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all
> > obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
> > "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
> > apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
>
>
Not to mention the Cosmic Watchmaker argument always leads to special
pleading
>
> > You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
> > going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
> > probably no hell either.
>
> That's a Christian point of view, not atheist.
>
and he is apparently too stupid to get that
>
>
>
> > You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
> > anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
>
> No atheist wants nativity scenes banned from public view.
>
Yeah, freedom of speech includes delusional stupidity.
>
>
> > You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
> > homosexuals.
>
> Except, that's not true. I know of no atheist that thinks marriage is
> an obsolete institution, fundy or otherwise.
>
I do. I think it is a private matter, and not a legal one.
> > When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
> > You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
> > shelves.
>
> I have never done this. Do you have any evidence that this has ever
> happened?
>
Evidence? He doesn't need evidence, he just need to "bear witness what
is in the heart" meaning in their twisted world belief = reality.
" all the time when I sneeze. I think you're lying.
>
>
> Are you done lying about atheists now?
>
No, Adman is not done lying.
Hatter
DanielSan
> On Feb 18, 10:17 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know of no atheist that thinks marriage is
>> an obsolete institution, fundy or otherwise.
>>
>
> I do. I think it is a private matter, and not a legal one.
>
But, you don't want to remove marriage as an institution, right? No one
may get married? That is what adman was implying that atheists want.
cactus
Hatter
> Hatter said the following on 2/19/2008 5:51 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> >> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> > You realize a made up story when you see one.
>
> > It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
> > common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
> > they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>
> > You want to be covincing?
>
> > (1)Define God.
> > (2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
> > (3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
> > has worshipped
>
> > Until you do those three things....you are just a gibbering tribal
> > primitive
>
> Oh, great. Now he's going to ignore you. Welcome to the evidently
> growing pantheon of folks adman is unable to answer. :-)
>
> --
> ****************************************************
superiority dance like the church lady from SNL, because one forgotten
letter is so much to hang an argument off of. ; )
Hatter
Hatter
> Hatter said the following on 2/19/2008 6:36 AM:
>
> > On Feb 18, 10:17 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I know of no atheist that thinks marriage is
> >> an obsolete institution, fundy or otherwise.
>
> > I do. I think it is a private matter, and not a legal one.
>
> But, you don't want to remove marriage as an institution, right? No one
> may get married? That is what adman was implying that atheists want.
>
time, IMHO, to abandon the right of governmental regulation of
people's private practices and agreements.
Hatter
Cary Kittrell
>
>
> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:T%ruj.4431$Sa1....@news02.roc.ny...
> | adman wrote:
> | > (snip)
> | > You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
> because
> | > it mentions "the creator".
> |
> |
> | Bwahahaha!
> |
> | The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. Maybe
> remedial
> | class in American history should be next on your to do list :-)
>
> Read it again drunk
>
> "You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
> it mentions "the creator".
>
> Maybe the word "BECAUSE" was too hard for you
The Declaration of Independence is neither constitutional
nor unconstitutional for at least three reasons:
-- it was written before the Constitution existed.
-- it has no force of law, being merely an interesting
historical document.
-- it was not issued by the government of the United
States, as there was neither a United States nor
any government thereof at the time.
-- cary
Geoff
> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:T%ruj.4431$Sa1....@news02.roc.ny...
>> adman wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>> You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
>>> because it mentions "the creator".
>>
>>
>> Bwahahaha!
>>
>> The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution.
>> Maybe remedial class in American history should be next on your to
>> do list :-)
>
> Read it again drunk
>
> "You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
> because it mentions "the creator".
>
> Maybe the word "BECAUSE" was too hard for you
Regardless, the DoI is not law and therefore is not subject to
constitutional interpretation any more than the Gettysburg Address is.
Geoff
> You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the
> 10th century to have been forged in the 14th.
I dated something I wrote today to the 10th century. Obviously, it is not a
forgery *rolls eyes*. Regardless, it's anyone's guess what the fuck you are
talking about.
> You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
> because it mentions "the creator".
You may be a political history illiterate if you think the DoI is law and
therefore somehow subject to constitutional review.
> You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
> homosexuals.
You may be a theist moron if you think marriage law in the United States is
anything but secular.
MarkA
I don't doubt that for a moment. What you haven't done is explain why
belief in sky pixie 'God' is any different from belief in the IPU, FSM,
Santa Claus, etc.
ken
> Maybe the word "BECAUSE" was too hard for you
LIke the word "EXPLANE" is too hard for you?
ken
> So, you just run away like a coward and ignore those that you cannot
> converse with? You haven't responded to a single point of mine, ever.
> What's the matter? Too difficult for you?
>
> I am probably the easiest person to convince about deities. Just show
> me one and I'll believe.
>
> --
> ****************************************************
> * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
*
And he AGAIN ignores you.
Maybe he's DILV's "altar" super-ego
adman
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:geqdnXZWic5pSyfa...@comcast.com...
It is impossible for me to respond to everyone. Sorry
adman
"cactus" <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:acCuj.11676$J41....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
Would this be from a Jewish perspective?
ken
> Just out of curiosity, how many books do you have in your home? Do
> you go to bookstores, or the library? How many books a year do you
> read?
>
> Liz #658 BAAWA
Should he count all the glossy porn mags he has too?
Kathy
"adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:QAzuj.102156$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Is this from a Jewish perspective?
>
You're anti Semitic?
adman
"Hatter" <Hatt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ed68b1a-1afd-4bf9...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
You realize a made up story when you see one.
It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
You want to be covincing?
(1)Define God.
Creator of all that you can see, feel,touch and experience
(2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
Your man made expirements and science proves this every day
(3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
has worshipped
Now you make a paradox. Worship, and religion in general, is man made,
neither has anything to do with God.
Hatter
> "Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ed68b1a-1afd-4bf9...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> You realize a made up story when you see one.
>
> It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
> common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
> they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>
> You want to be covincing?
>
> (1)Define God.
>
> Creator of all that you can see, feel,touch and experience
>
> (2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
>
> Your man made expirements and science proves this every day
>
> (3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
> has worshipped
>
> Now you make a paradox. Worship, and religion in general, is man made,
> neither has anything to do with God.
>
OK Now you do have a point. You are the first theist to actually seem
to rise to this challange, despite your otherwise rude behavior, I can
respect that. Now readress the question with the word "believed"
replacing "worshiped." I will no longer use that word, it was a
weakness in my argument.
Now if you are not going for the Christian Triune, but rather the
Deistic model...there's not much I can do. While I believe their logic
to be incomplete, I have a lot of respect for Deists, and consider
them closer to my mindset, agnostic atheist, than the majority of
humanity. Christians including the subset of JWs, are just tribal
primitives pointing to obvoiusly man made fairy tales.
Hatter
Liz
> On Feb 19, 4:22 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, how many books do you have in your home? Do
> > you go to bookstores, or the library? How many books a year do you
> > read?
>
> Should he count all the glossy porn mags he has too?
I guess that would depend on whether the magazines have any words in
them.
Liz #658
Diäbloë *~ ®
Just produce the deity.
>
>
>
Diäbloë *~ ®
>
> "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alw...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:6428388b-0c08-4785...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...> | <snipping heaps of crap>
> | >
> | > You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
> |
> | Why the hell would I take Halloween off work?
> |
> | Anyway, you don't get classed as fundy theist until you start
> | projectile spittling while ranting, and probably start shooting at
> | people or suicide bombing. Strikes me as a double standard on that
> | fundamentalist label.
> | Fundy Muslim might poke your eyes out for looking at his wife, and
> | that's OK, 'cos it's his religion. "Fundy" atheist might tell you
> | something you didn't want to know about the history of your precious
> | book. Um... just a little bit different.
> |
> | Al
> | Don't make me turn into a fundy atheist instead of a "fundy" atheis
>
>
> I guess there are radicals all around.
Can you ever respond to anyone using more than one sentence or an insult?
>
>
>
Ips-Switch
> Hatter said the following on 2/19/2008 5:51 AM:
>> On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>>> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>>>
>> You realize a made up story when you see one.
>>
>> It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
>> common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
>> they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>>
>> You want to be covincing?
>>
>> (1)Define God.
>> (2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
>> (3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
>> has worshipped
>>
>>
>> Until you do those three things....you are just a gibbering tribal
>> primitive
>
> Oh, great. Now he's going to ignore you. Welcome to the evidently
> growing pantheon of folks adman is unable to answer. :-)
He's a typical Jehovahs Witless. They all follow the same path. They know
they'll get their asses kicked but keep coming back for more. It reaffirms
their belief everyone hate's them.
adman
Hatter
Prove there is no God kook. YOU CAN'T
Diäbloë *~ ®
Every time a pedophile rapes and kills a baby proves there is no god. Every
time a hurricane kills thousands it proves there is no god. Every time a
disease kills millions worldwide it proves there is no God. Every time a
woman dies giving birth proves there is no god.
>
>
>
>
>
Hatter
> "Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:32061e06-d63f-4daa...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 8:55 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> > >> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> > > You realize a made up story when you see one.
>
> > > It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
> > > common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
> > > they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>
> > > You want to be covincing?
>
> > > (1)Define God.
> > > (2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
> > > (3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
> > > has worshipped
>
> > > Until you do those three things....you are just a gibbering tribal
> > > primitive
>
> > Oh, great. Now he's going to ignore you. Welcome to the evidently
> > growing pantheon of folks adman is unable to answer. :-)
>
> > --
> > ****************************************************
>
> Well I did make a typo, so he might just run around doing the
> superiority dance like the church lady from SNL, because one forgotten
> letter is so much to hang an argument off of. ; )
>
> Hatter
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Prove that your God does not:
1) only want atheists to go to heaven
2) hate all people of blind faith, sending them to hell.
YOU CAN'T
Hatter
wow, the boy is dense.
Uncle Vic
>
> Prove there is no God kook. YOU CAN'T
>
This is not our responsibility. "God" is your claim. All we say is "I
don't believe you." Instead of asking for proof of nogod, supply some
evidence for the god you say exists. Pretty trees and chirping birds are
not evidence of any god. Nor is the complexity of the eye. I asked a guy
for evidence once, and all he could come up with was Bishop Eusebius's
fraudulent addition to Josephus. If you want to prove your god exists,
pray for something. Not something that's going to happen anyway, but
something that only a god could do. Like sudden instantaneous world peace.
Or an amputated limb to grow back. These things could apparently happen in
bible time. But as soon as the bibletime ended and reality took over, the
miracles stopped happening. Very suspect, no?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
panam...@hotmail.com
Prove there is no dragon in my garage, kook. YOU CAN'T
-PF, Atl.
2015/KoB!
Syd M.
Not our job, KOOK!!
PDW, AA#1148
osugeography
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:ef5b064e-5aed-4303...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> | > adman said the following on 2/18/2008 7:03 PM:
> | >
> | > > You may be a fundy atheist if....
> | >
> and
> | > > leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
> | >
> |
> | Yep.
> |
> | > > You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were
> "all
> | > > obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more
> complex was
> | > > "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more
> complex the
> | > > apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
> | >
> |
> | A bit of an important difference. Its sad that some people are too
> | stupid to
> | grasp that point.
> |
> | > > You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th
> century to
> | > > have been forged in the 14th.
> | >
> | >
> | > > You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
> because
> | > > it mentions "the creator".
> | >
> |
> | Well, our little fundy fool clearly cannot even read a calendar...
> |
> | > > When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then
> history
> | > > is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship
> to
> | > > prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore
> cannot
> | > > be trusted.
> | >
> | > For example?
> |
> | The widdle fundy fool also doesn't get that his " point " applies
> | equally to the
> | bible...
> |
> | > > You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other
> kind of
> | > > war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I
> and II,
> | > > Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
> | >
> | > No one has ever asserted that, except you.
> |
> | Well, religious wars and upheavals killed on a mostly ongoing basis.
> | But,
> | as to the question of which killed more, thats an open question.
> |
> | One might suggest that some of the recent civil wars have a religious
> | component, such as in the former Yugoslavia.
> |
> | > > You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're
> afraid of
> | > > going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
> | > > probably no hell either.
> | >
> | > That's a Christian point of view, not atheist.
> |
> | Well, we don't believe in either god nor hell.
> |
> | > > You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
> | >
> | > It is defaced already.
> |
> | For a bit over 50 years now, in the US...
> |
> | > > You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in
> the
> | > > flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to
> abort
> | > > her baby.
> | >
> | > Err, you cannot abort a baby. �By the way, Christians are more likely to
> | > have abortions than any other group.
> |
> | So much for that " religion equals better morality " lie...
> |
> | > > You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view,
> but that
> | > > anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
> | >
> | > No atheist wants nativity scenes banned from public view.
> |
> | I've seen suggestions that they not be placed on public lands/spaces,
> | but that theres no issue with them being on private lands/spaces, and
> | religiously owned ones.
> |
> | > > You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
> | > > homosexuals.
> | >
> | > an obsolete institution, fundy or otherwise.
> |
> | trends that have diminished the meaning of marriage. Just for non
> | religious reasons, though.
> |
> | > > You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy,
> but
> | > > homosexuals are born that way.
> | >
> | > Wow. �That's a new one. �I've never heard that before.
> |
> | Me, neither. In fact, my view that pretty much anyone can become an
> | atheist
> | is quite the opposite of what the fundy fool is claiming.
> |
> | > > When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction"
> section.
> | > > You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the
> "non-fiction"
> | > > shelves.
> | >
> | > I have never done this. �Do you have any evidence that this has ever
> | > happened?
> |
> | Well, my personal copies of the bible are in my personal home
> | library's fiction
> | section. But, thats as far as that goes. Though, I will confess that I
> | have, from
> | time to time, turned Ann Coulter books in stores backside facing.
> |
> | > > If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it
> back!'
> | >
> | > This has never happened to me and I'm told "God Bless You" or "Bless
> | > You" all the time when I sneeze. �I think you're lying.
> |
> | I use several versions, usually a shorter " bless you " or
> | "ghesuntheit ".
> |
> | > > Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all
> reason
> | > > when reading The Bible.
> | >
> | > Another fallacious statement.
> |
> | While I admit that I often finds bits of the bible to be funny when I
> | read them,
> | I don;t find them funny enough to, say, spew a drink. That reaction
> | needs a
> | Robin Williams class bit, and the writers of the bible weren't that
> | good.
> |
> | > > You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
> | >
> |
> | For those who work(ed) retail, its kinda hard to work Christmas Day...
> |
> | > Are you done lying about atheists now?
> |
> | That was a rhetorical question, right ?
> |
> | Andre
>
> You have no opinion of your own except to agree with others?
>
> Ctrl_Atl_Delete
Adman wrote:
> You have no opinion of your own except to agree with others?
Adman--does your statement immediately above extend to your own
opinions? In other words, was the list "You! just ! may be a
fundamentalist atheist if ...." your own original questions, or did
you decide to just "agree with others?"
Also, I just found a copy of the Pete Hamil (sp?) essay "End Game",
which we spoke of very briefly. If you didn't find a copy, let me
know, if I can email it to you.
Regards,
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
adman
YOU CAN'T
__________________________________________
YOU cannot PROVE God Does NOT exist can you kook?
Thought so.
adman
| One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote:
|
|
| >
| > Prove there is no God kook. YOU CAN'T
| >
|
| This is not our responsibility. "God" is your claim.
Wrong answer kook. YOU say there is no God. Prove that assertion.
curtjester1
> leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
>
tooth fairy = I will be the smarter one. Kinda goes along with the
bigger the head the more intelligent the species syndrome.
> You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all
> obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
> "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
> apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
>
yeah, and they will say they're not living which doesn't really stand
u to logic.
> You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to
> have been forged in the 14th.
>
You do the math.
> You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
> it mentions "the creator".
>
Probably would get more applicants at the Mint if they put in, In God
We Don't Trust..as their motto.
> When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then history
> is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to
> prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot
> be trusted.
>
Yeah those four guys getting together to get this real crazy movie
script together. Now THAT's imagination!
> You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of
> war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II,
> Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
>
Well your only really religious when you do what Jesus says.
Religious people don't do that, and well they say their is no atheists
in foxholes.
> You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
> going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
> probably no hell either.
>
Did you hear about the North American Baptist discussing the doctrine
of hell with the Southern Baptist. The SB said there is a hell!...and
the NAB says, "the hell there is!"
> You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
>
Well their friends own the Federal Reserve, and so they don't care.
When you don't have to pay bills and can create your own money...who
needs a God?
> You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the
> flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort
> her baby.
>
Well one is doing the earth a favor, and the other is avoiding
responsibility.
> You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
> anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
>
I think public cell phone users should be put to death.
> You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
> homosexuals.
>
I think they think Haight Ashbury is the missing link.
> You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but
> homosexuals are born that way.
>
"Mommy can't tell me what to do...See!"
> When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
> You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
> shelves.
>
Why go to a bookstore when the JW will give it to your for pennies on
the dollar?
> If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
>
I bet Gezhundheit is a swear word too.
> Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason
> when reading The Bible.
>
I think they rather look down than up...See your first comment.
> You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
Well, at least there starting to get a little better TV on at
Christmas.
CJ
Ralph
That you would even suggest this shows your total lack of intellect.
Ken
> "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:geqdnXZWic5pSyfa...@comcast.com...
> | adman said the following on 2/19/2008 4:51 AM:
> | >news:Xns9A48D312...@207.115.17.102...
> | > | One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> | > | >news:Xns9A48C86E...@207.115.33.102...
Butt you just did, but then why bother answering his challenge if
you're too busy trolling for attention?
Ken
Some have words in 'em?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
He reads them for the articles on American politics, American sport
and American music.
Being a good little JW he pretends the gynecology articles aren't
there.
hhya...@gmail.com
> "Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why not?
This is proof:
Your bloody god cannot stop us from cursing him, or have the opinion
that he is a liar, or he led you to lie, to imagine things, to think
without going through the brain.....
Your god cannot make himslef/herself/itself appear.......
Your god had created all the diseases that killed millions, and is
still killing millions of Africans with HIV........
What more do you want? Or do you need to bear his crime?
hhya...@gmail.com
The apparent only existed when people wrote stories, created ones.
Just like the tales in the bible, you want to find another Moses to
open up a channel?
(Also a stupid act in that he only saved the few remaining but forgo
the many perished, with his power?)
Any person who has a brain which is equipped with cells will know how
real is this world.....not fantasy land.
hhya...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just proved to you, but do you accept the facts?
Douglas Berry
the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:T%ruj.4431$Sa1....@news02.roc.ny...
>| adman wrote:
>| > (snip)
>| > You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
>because
>| > it mentions "the creator".
>|
>|
>|
>| The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. Maybe
>remedial
>| class in American history should be next on your to do list :-)
>
>Read it again drunk
>
>"You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
>it mentions "the creator".
>
Maybe thinking is too hard for you. The Declaration of Independence
was adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4th, 1776.
The Constitution of the United States was adopted on September 17,
1787, and ratified on June 21, 1788.
Since the DoI was written and adopted 12 years before the Constution,
and is not in fact any sort of law, it cannot be unconstitutional.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Liz
wrote:
>On Feb 19, 11:17 am, Liz <mtst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Some have words in 'em?
Ah . . . um . . . I don't really have any expertise in this area.
Liz #658 BAAWA
We may have lost our moral compass but we still have our chaste
sextant, our modest flashlight, our ethical pen knife, and our
virtuous canteen. -- jwkinraleigh
Cary Kittrell
>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:21:04 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 19, 11:17 am, Liz <mtst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 1:08 pm, ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Feb 19, 4:22 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Just out of curiosity, how many books do you have in your home? Do
> >> > > you go to bookstores, or the library? How many books a year do you
> >> > > read?
> >>
> >> > Should he count all the glossy porn mags he has too?
> >>
> >> I guess that would depend on whether the magazines have any words in
> >> them.
> >>
> >
> >Some have words in 'em?
>
>
> Ah . . . um . . . I don't really have any expertise in this area.
Me, I just look at them for the typefonts.
-- cary
Douglas Berry
the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
It's Santa Claus. And we use them because they work in arguing about
of entities that are similarly invisible, silent, and not overly
present.
>
>You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all
>obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
>"obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
>apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
The important difference is nothing in your first group is alive. We
can leave our laptops in the same bag for a week, and we aren't going
to find a baby USB drive one morning.
We know how life evolves, we have the mechanism, and can reproduce it
in the lab.
>You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to
>have been forged in the 14th.
Ever hear of Han van Meegeren?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren
To make sure his paintings (mostly painted in the 1920s and 30s)
passed for works by Dutch masters of the 17 century he made paints in
the old style used in the period. He acquired canvases from museums
that had been used as backings in other paintings. So testing showed
that his Vermeers and Borches were of the proper age.
So yeah, completely possible.
>You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
>it mentions "the creator".
LOL! Explain to me in detail, how a document adopted 12 years before
the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, a document that
is not intended to serve any legal purpose other than informing His
Royal Majesty, George III, that we were no longer his subjects.
Please, explain this, and then cite any attempt by anyone in any court
to get the DoI declared unconstitutional.
>When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then history
>is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to
>prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot
>be trusted.
We generally have better sources, and multiple ones.
>You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of
>war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II,
>Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
Right. Hitler had no religious hang-ups at all.
>You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
>going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
>probably no hell either.
Well, that's circular. And you're wrong. People believe in gods for
many reasons, fear of punishment is only one of them.
>You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
Never done that in my life. Why bother?
>You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the
>flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort
>her baby.
There was no global flood. And there is a difference between
triggering a near-extinction event and making a difficult personal
choice.
>You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
>anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
Wrong. I have no problem which churches or private citizens putting up
nativity scenes on their own property. What I object to is such
displays on public property.
If a pornographic display was in front of City Hall, I'd object to
that too. However, porno is something you have to seek out and
acquire. It is designed to be enjoyed in solitude (or with a partner)
for personal gratification.
Understand the difference?
>You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
>homosexuals.
Again, LOL!! I'm about 2 months from my 17th marriage anniversary. I
think marriage is a wonderful thing both from a personal and legal
perspective. That's why I support allowing any consenting adults to
enter into it, regardless of gender.
You have a good, legal, argument against same-sex marriage?
>You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but
>homosexuals are born that way.
No, I don't believe that. I believe that societies reinforce the
traditional roles that they see for girls and boys. Luckily, with
increased literacy and communications, options open up for both
genders.
I know many gay men and women. Not one chose to be gay. Most of them,
at one point or another, suffered for being different.
>When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
>You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
>shelves.
I have too much respect for bookstore workers to do that. Besides, I
usually make a bee-line for the science fiction section.
>If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
No, I say either "Thank you" or "Excuse me."
>Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason
>when reading The Bible.
Nope. In fact, rational thought is the reason why I can read the Bible
(I own three) with a critical eye.
>You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
Back when I worked for SuperShuttle, I did indeed work Christmas (and
Thanksgiving.) That's because people were still flying on Christmas
morning.
These days, the company I drive for is closed on Christmas, mainly
because most of the people we supply are off also.
I could care less about Halloween. The days off I normally take are to
allow me to attend science-fiction conventions.
By the way, *pagans*, who do believe in deities, would be more likely
to take Halloween off.
Now let's see if you have the cojones to reply.
DanielSan
I can. I can do it in 2 simple 1 word sentences. As of this day, not a
single theist has ever been able to dispute this argument:
Ra. Extrapolate.
Uncle Vic
>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4992F1...@207.115.17.102...
>| One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>|
>|
>| >
>| > Prove there is no God kook. YOU CAN'T
>| >
>|
>| This is not our responsibility. "God" is your claim.
>
> Wrong answer kook. YOU say there is no God. Prove that assertion.
>
>
>
>
You don't claim that god exists?
Uncle Vic
>
> The apparent only existed when people wrote stories, created ones.
> Just like the tales in the bible, you want to find another Moses to
> open up a channel?
> (Also a stupid act in that he only saved the few remaining but forgo
> the many perished, with his power?)
> Any person who has a brain which is equipped with cells will know how
> real is this world.....not fantasy land.
>
If the god is real, yes. Let them open up a channel. Let them put up or
shut up.
Diäbloë *~ ®
Why do you keep mindlessly asking the same questions and insulting the very
people you're trying to convince to give up on science and return to Bronze
Age mythology? Since you claimed there is a god, it's up to you to prove it
exists, not for others to prove it doesn't.
>
>
>
Liz
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <c72nr359q8ano3l42...@4ax.com> ehu...@donotspam.com writes:
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:21:04 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 19, 11:17 am, Liz <mtst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 19, 1:08 pm, ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Feb 19, 4:22 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > Just out of curiosity, how many books do you have in your home? Do
>> >> > > you go to bookstores, or the library? How many books a year do you
>> >> > > read?
>> >>
>> >> > Should he count all the glossy porn mags he has too?
>> >>
>> >> I guess that would depend on whether the magazines have any words in
>> >> them.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Some have words in 'em?
>>
>>
>> Ah . . . um . . . I don't really have any expertise in this area.
>
>Me, I just look at them for the typefonts.
>
And who doesn't love a good Gothic Bold Condensed.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Christopher A. Lee
Bold's great if you're a bit shy yourself, but not too condensed,
please.
>Liz #658 BAAWA
Smiler
"Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote in message
news:47bb448b$0$1348$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0sOdnTsET42uQifa...@comcast.com...
>> Hatter said the following on 2/19/2008 5:51 AM:
>>> On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>>>> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>>>>
>>> You realize a made up story when you see one.
>>>
>>> It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
>>> common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
>>> they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>>>
>>> You want to be covincing?
>>>
>>> (1)Define God.
>>> (2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
>>> (3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
>>> has worshipped
>>>
>>>
>>> Until you do those three things....you are just a gibbering tribal
>>> primitive
>>
>> Oh, great. Now he's going to ignore you. Welcome to the evidently
>> growing pantheon of folks adman is unable to answer. :-)
>
> they'll get their asses kicked but keep coming back for more. It reaffirms
> their belief everyone hate's them.
>
That's not a belief, it's fact :-)
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Dave Oldridge
news:kradnapsy9bMRCfa...@comcast.com:
> Dave Oldridge said the following on 2/19/2008 5:08 AM:
>> "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote in
>> news:ycsuj.104227$L%6.5...@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:T%ruj.4431$Sa1....@news02.roc.ny...
>>> | adman wrote:
>>> | > (snip)
>>> | > You think that the Declaration of Independence is
unconstitutional
>>> because
>>> | > it mentions "the creator".
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | Bwahahaha!
>>> |
>>> | The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution.
>>> | Maybe
>>> remedial
>>> | class in American history should be next on your to do list :-)
>>>
>>> Read it again drunk
>>>
>>> "You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional
>>> because it mentions "the creator".
>>>
>>> Maybe the word "BECAUSE" was too hard for you
>>
>> The declaration was a manifesto. It is NOT a part of the US
>> constitution.
>>
>> Sheesh! You people don't even know your own history.
>>
>>
>
> Please don't lump educated Americans (yes, we exist!) in with the
> stupidity inherent in adman. Unless, by "you people", you meant
idiotic
> theists such as adman. :-)
Sorry for the confusion. I meant his cult, not all Americans.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
John Locke
>You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
>You can make the existence of pink unicorns,sky pixels, Santa clause, and
>leprechauns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
You left out the tooth fairy. And by the way, the concept of Sana
Claus was derived from a real, warm hearted person. Unlike your
God of wrath and vengence.
>
>
>You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all
>obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was
>"obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the
>apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
Machines don't have the advantage of DNA.
>
>You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to
>have been forged in the 14th.
Huh ??
>You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
>it mentions "the creator".
The term "unconstitutional" does not apply to the Declaration of
Independence. Our governing laws were based on the Constitution and
Bill of Rights.
>When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false then history
>is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to
>prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot
>be trusted.
Exactly.
>
>You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of
>war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II,
>Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
Wars are wars. But religion is supposed to be about loving a God.
There should never had been any deaths in the name of God or religion.
>
>You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of
>going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's
>probably no hell either.
They believe in God hell because they "think" there is a God and hell.
Has nothing to do with my beliefs.
>
>You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
Waste of time.
>
>You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the
>flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort
>her baby.
The woman has the ulimate say. Its her body and her child. Even nature
will abort a fetus if something is wrong. Since there is no God, the
relgious need to mind their own business.
>You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
>anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
Shold be banned if they're on public property. Pornography..if you
don't like it don't look at it. You won't turn into a pillar of salt
if catch a glimpse...let me know though, that might be your "proof"
of God's existence.
>You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution - except for
>homosexuals.
If two people want to get married I don't care. You can marry the
neighbors goat and I wouldn't bat an eye.
>
>You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but
>homosexuals are born that way.
I don't believe anything. I don't care.
>
>
>When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
>You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction"
>shelves.
In my local bookstore, the Bibles are already in the fiction section.
>
>If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
Who cares ? They could say that God would send me straight to hell for
blowing viruses in their face and I woudln't give a hoot.
>
>Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason
>when reading The Bible.
There is nothing to lose. There is no reason or logic asscociated with
the bible. Its just a bunch of superstition and voodoo.
>
>You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.
Love Halloween. Hate what Christmas has become. Revenue flow
in the name of Jesus. If you want to celebrate Jesus, get yourself a
donkey and a robe, give away all of you possesions to the poor
and go out on the road and preach to the masses. After all, isn't
that what it all about ??
Uncle Vic
>
> "Hatter" <Hatt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5ed68b1a-1afd-4bf9-8c67-49d757798a33@
34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>>
> You realize a made up story when you see one.
>
> It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
> common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
> they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>
> You want to be covincing?
>
> (1)Define God.
>
> Creator of all that you can see, feel,touch and experience
Not a definition, just your opinion. Exactly WHAT is a god? What is it
made of?
>
> (2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
>
> Your man made expirements and science proves this every day
Your man-made god defies logic. For example, you posit He gave us Free
Will, yet he is omniscient - he knows the outcome of all events past,
present and future. If that is true, mankind has no free will, lest we
go against the god's will. And if it's possible to do this, then the god
is not omniscient, since he cannot outguess my free will.
>
> (3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
> has worshipped
>
> Now you make a paradox. Worship, and religion in general, is man made,
> neither has anything to do with God.
Oh, the goalposts are moving again. Please explain how religion has
nothing to do with God. And while you're at it, please explain how your
god differs from any other god ever worshiped in the history of mankind.
Olrik
> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A4992F1...@207.115.17.102...
> | One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> |
> |
> | >
> | > Prove there is no God kook. YOU CAN'T
> | >
> |
> | This is not our responsibility. "God" is your claim.
>
> Wrong answer kook. YOU say there is no God.
Vic did not say that.
Theists came first, they have the burden of proof.
Olrik
> Prove that assertion.
DanielSan
Okay, no problem. From what I can tell, his is a cult of one: The
Stupidity of Adman. :-)
DanielSan
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:26:43 +0000, Elmer wrote:
>
>>> You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because
>>> it mentions "the creator".
>>
>> Bwahahaha!
>>
>> The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. Maybe remedial
>> class in American history should be next on your to do list :-)
>
> mentioned in the Constitution. The correct reading would be "some
> principles found in the Declaration of Independence have been found to be
> unconstitutional."
Actually, no. The Declaration of Independence is not law. It cannot be
unconstitutional.
> In fact, if those principles had ruled in that day,
> very likely there would never have been the nation that we presently
> enjoy. It was important to have unscientific concepts such as "all men
> are created equal" when atheists say they were not created at all
Not by a superhuman designer, and certainly not by YOUR god. Read more
of the founders' words. They talk about "nature's god" which is not the
Christian god. Nature's god is a part of deistic faith which rejects
supernatural events and asserts that this god does NOT interfere with
the events and laws of the universe.
Basically, the deistic god set the universe in motion (big bang?) and
left it alone from there.
You're not that good at this thing, are you?
> and most
> certainly are not equal by any conceivable measure. But as a guiding
> philosophy, it was necessary to believe it, and practice it, and there
> could be no authority OTHER THAN God,
Not the Christian god.
> since no man has automatically
> authority over any other.
No single person over another single person.
> A nation cannot exist unless people GIVE
> authority to someone, but who is it going to be?
>
The people.
Look, read the Constitution and learn the history of the United States,
then get back to us.
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:hb4r85-...@75-104-212-149.cust.wildblue.net...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:03:48 -0600 in
> QFruj.104202$L%6.3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et>
> wrote:
>
>> You may<SNIP>
>
> Okay, this is just getting sad...
Not that I should be pointing fingers <cough>, but I'm actually quite
surprised that so many people are still replying to this asshole. It's
Jabbers, no?
Well, regardless, he/she/its still an asshole.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Hatter
> "Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:387bc324-09a4-401b...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 4:30 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:32061e06-d63f-4daa...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 19, 8:55 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> > > >> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>
> > > > You realize a made up story when you see one.
>
> > > > It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
> > > > common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
> > > > they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>
> > > > You want to be covincing?
>
> > > > (1)Define God.
> > > > has worshipped
>
> > > > primitive
>
> > > Oh, great. Now he's going to ignore you. Welcome to the evidently
> > > growing pantheon of folks adman is unable to answer. :-)
>
> > > ****************************************************
>
> > Well I did make a typo, so he might just run around doing the
> > superiority dance like the church lady from SNL, because one forgotten
> > letter is so much to hang an argument off of. ; )
>
> >Hatter
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Prove that your God does not:
>
> 1) only want atheists to go to heaven
> 2) hate all people of blind faith, sending them to hell.
>
> YOU CAN'T
>
> __________________________________________
>
> YOU cannot PROVE God Does NOT exist can you kook?
>
> Thought so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Listen up you primitive screwhead. If I cannot prove a negative, and
you need no proof for your claims, then I have all the same footing to
claim anything I can imagine and therefore it is all real. That is
just stupid.
So I cannot prove their is "No God"* So what? You cannot prove the God
you believe in only saves atheists and send all believers to hell, so
does that make it a reasonable claim?
*Playing snip with this sentence is proof you are a liar.
Hatter
>
Why can't adman get this simple of analogy? Is he intellectually
incapable of doing so? Truly Short Bus material?
Hatter
adman
adman
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jdLuj.92241$_m....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
|
| "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:E%Kuj.75317$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > news:Xns9A4992F1...@207.115.17.102...
| > | One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | >
| > | > Prove there is no God kook. YOU CAN'T
| > | >
| > |
| >
|
| That you would even suggest this shows your total lack of intellect.
Prove that assertion Atheist make that God does not exist.
|
|
adman
"Olrik" <olri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c87669f-2eaa-4fec...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
So what Your assertion came second.
Prove that assertion Atheist make that God does not exist.
|
| Olrik
|
| > Prove that assertion.
|
Nosterill
> YOU cannot PROVE God Does NOT exist can
> you kook?
Did you really not understand the point Hatter was making? If you did,
then you are just resorting to dishonesty.
In the event that you honestly didn't - let me put it another way.
1) I cannot prove that your god does not exist.
2) I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.
3) I cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist.
4) I cannot prove that Oonglopth of Squelth did not fart the universe
into existence.
5) I cannot prove that there is no invisible micro-hippopotamus in
George W. Bush's skull.
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Does this prove that they are all true? I'm inclined to think that the
last is the least improbable.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <75...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>
>> "Hatter" <Hatt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5ed68b1a-1afd-4bf9-8c67-49d757798a33@
>34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 18, 10:03 pm, "adman" <7...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>>> You may be a fundy atheist if....
>>>
>> You realize a made up story when you see one.
>>
>> It is that simple. Unfortunately, you cannot handle reality. It is a
>> common failing. That you attack others who can tell bulllshit when
>> they see it, that is what makes you a special kind of idiot.
>>
>> You want to be covincing?
>>
>> (1)Define God.
>>
>> Creator of all that you can see, feel,touch and experience
>
>Not a definition, just your opinion. Exactly WHAT is a god? What is it
>made of?
All definitions are ultimately circular as they are composed of other
words each with their own definition.
With most definitions however, there is a way out of the endless loop
- they actually refer to something in the real world.
So a house cat is a small friendly feline.
A lion is a large carnivorous feline.
A feline is a member of the cat family.
As soon as you see a cat everything falls into place.
Even if you have never seen a lion you now have a reference point and
have some idea what it is.
But gods (as defined by their believers) are something else.
There is no way out of the loop.
For example "the creator of the universe" makes use of two undefined
concepts "the creator" and "it created". To have any validity they
have to demonstrate that the universe actually was created by this
creator.
There is however a way of making this definition 100% accurate and
justified.
Add "as believed by the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions".
It now defines how it is seen by both its believers and everybody else
as well.
Those who can't think outside the box don't like it because it puts
their god firmly in the same class as Zeus, Odin and all the others
for anybody who doesn't believe it.
But that's all it is to them anyway.