Everything comes from God
Jahnu
> So THAT is where malaria and luekemia and MS
> and Alzheimers comes from - your "loving" god.
Yep. EVERYTHING comes from God. God facilitates everything. You
couldn't be good or evil or obnoxious or stupid or even an atheist,
unless allowed to and facilitated by God. God has created the material
world as a place full of suffering and misery. Think about it... the
highest pleasure in the material world is considered to be when you
rub to pieces of flesh against eachother. How foolish is that? It is
bound to end in misery because the two pieces of flesh grow old, sick
and die.
I'm not saying that I am beyond sex-life, because, after all, it is a
very deeply rooted attachment. But ever so gradually by the process of
serving Krishna, I am experiencing a pleasure which is infinitely
higher than what you can get through bodily gratification. And, BTW,
THAT is the proof of the superiority of Krishna Conciousness - the
highes pleasure you experience by engaging in it.
Krishna says:
After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogis in devotion, never
return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because
they have attained the highest perfection. (Bg. 8.15)
From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all
are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But
one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.
(Bg. 8.16)
and...
The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the
taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by
experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness. (Bg. 2.59)
livvy
Yup, does. If you don't believe in God, why waste your time, and
time of others, yapping about something in which you dion't believe?
There's no result, no conclusion...you'll yap....others surely will.
And no resolve. You'll never agree,,,,and you'll never understand
that no one fucking cares. And yet you'll still yammer. " The
embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the
> taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness. (Bg. 2.59)"
Oh, for fucks sake....get over yourself. Stop pasting what you last
looked up on the internet. It's irrelevant....if it's important to
you, there are lots of sites out there that are fine with yoiur
forgetting you have a brain. Look them up....you're a target,
you'll be fine.
Jahnu
> Oh, for fucks sake....get over yourself. Stop pasting what you last
> looked up on the internet. It's irrelevant....if it's important to
> you, there are lots of sites out there that are fine with yoiur
> forgetting you have a brain. Look them up....you're a target,
> you'll be fine
Krishna says:
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything
emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My
devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. (Bg.10.8)
livvy
yup, heard it. It's not a competition....if that's what you believe,
who's stopping you?
Jahnu
> yup, heard it. It's not a competition....if that's what you believe,
> who's stopping you?
"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder and
ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and
subtlety of Vedic culture." - Henry David Thoreau
livvy
you can't answer a question in an intelligent manner, as though you've
had an education. All you know how to do is quote material from
known authors off the internet. You think that makes you smart?
No.....it doesn't....sorry. Known material....doesn't prove a
thing.
Jahnu
> you can't answer a question in an intelligent manner, as though you've
> had an education.
Sorry, what was the question?
> All you know how to do is quote material from
> known authors off the internet. You think that makes you smart?
Yes. It's always smart to quote authorities to prove your point.
> No.....it doesn't....sorry. Known material....doesn't prove a
> thing.
You seem confused. What are you trying to say?
JayPee Vee
> On Aug 22, 6:59 am, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > So THAT is where malaria and luekemia and MS
> > and Alzheimers comes from - your "loving" god.
>
> Yep. EVERYTHING comes from God.
There is no god. Get over it and stop trolling.
JayPee Vee
> On Aug 22, 1:44 pm, livvy <go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, for fucks sake....get over yourself. Stop pasting what you last
> > looked up on the internet. It's irrelevant....if it's important to
> > you, there are lots of sites out there that are fine with yoiur
> > forgetting you have a brain. Look them up....you're a target,
> > you'll be fine
>
> Krishna says:
Who gives a flying fuck?
Seriously, do you think that posting your nonsense here has any effect
on our lives?
The more you post, the more you convince us that there is no god.
Jahnu
> There is no god. Get over it and stop trolling.
Get a usenet education, bozo, and learn what a troll is.
Jahnu
> Seriously, do you think that posting your nonsense here has any effect
> on our lives?
At the time of reckoning, you'll thank me for having forced you to
hear Krishna's name.
> The more you post, the more you convince us that there is no god.
You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit about what you
are convinced of.
Look, you are predicted in the Bhagavad Gita - Krishna says:
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg. 7.25)
JayPee Vee
> On Aug 22, 2:49 pm, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no god. Get over it and stop trolling.
>
> Get a usenet education, bozo, and learn what a troll is.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent
of provoking other users into a desired emotional response."
from wikipedia.
Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
if not to provoke, troll?
JayPee Vee
> On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seriously, do you think that posting your nonsense here has any effect
> > on our lives?
>
> At the time of reckoning, you'll thank me for having forced you to
> hear Krishna's name.
Get a life. No one cares.
Shabooboo Krishna Update
51a9ae...@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
No He Doesn't
Krishna has personally informed me, that he has delegated the source of all
spiritual and material worlds to pudding. All God Botherers should now
address all their prayers and incantations to THE BIG PUDDING",
Administration Block 2*10^666, Multiverse Central.
*- Shabooboo Krishna Updates -*
DanielSan
> On Aug 22, 2:18 pm, livvy<go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> you can't answer a question in an intelligent manner, as though you've
>> had an education.
>
> Sorry, what was the question?
>
>> All you know how to do is quote material from
>> known authors off the internet. You think that makes you smart?
>
> Yes. It's always smart to quote authorities to prove your point.
So, when you accurately quote the authorities on the subject (who
actually really DO believe in evolutionary theory), let me know.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
------------------------------
"The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism,
disbelief-call it what you will-than any book ever written; it has
emptied more churches than all the counterattractions of cinema, motor
bicycle and golf course." -- a.a. milne
Jahnu
> So, when you accurately quote the authorities on the subject (who
> actually really DO believe in evolutionary theory), let me know.
Who gives a shit what they believe in? I am simply quoting what they
say about ET.
Krishna says:
Deluded by the three modes [goodness, passion and ignorance], the
whole world does not know Me, who am above the modes and
inexhaustible. (Bg. 7.13)
Jahnu
> Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
> if not to provoke, troll?
Because I despise people who are too stupid to ignore people they
don't like or put them in their kill-filter, but in stead bitch and
moan endlessly about God and religion. It gives me great pleasure to
smash them with facts and see them squirm.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Aug 22, 5:14 pm, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
>> if not to provoke, troll?
>
>Because I despise people who are too stupid to ignore people they
>don't like or put them in their kill-filter, but in stead bitch and
>moan endlessly about God and religion. It gives me great pleasure to
>smash them with facts and see them squirm.
So you post falsehoods here because you are an total jerk. Nice to know.
>Krishna says:
>
>Deluded by the three modes [goodness, passion and ignorance], the
>whole world does not know Me, who am above the modes and
>inexhaustible. (Bg. 7.13)
I will happily plonk you for a while.
DanielSan
> On Aug 22, 5:14 pm, JayPee Vee<jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
>> if not to provoke, troll?
>
> Because I despise people who are too stupid to ignore people they
> don't like or put them in their kill-filter, but in stead bitch and
> moan endlessly about God and religion.
I don't dislike you. You're just stupid. And it pains me.
> It gives me great pleasure to
> smash them with facts and see them squirm.
Well, when you start that, will you let us know?
Jahnu
> So you post falsehoods here because you are an total jerk. Nice to know.
Thank you. From you it's a compliment.
> I will happily plonk you for a while.
Boo, hoo, sob, sob
Krishna says:
Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among
mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the
atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me. (Bg. 7.15)
DanielSan
> On Aug 22, 6:59 pm, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> So, when you accurately quote the authorities on the subject (who
>> actually really DO believe in evolutionary theory), let me know.
>
> Who gives a shit what they believe in?
What the what?
> I am simply quoting what they
> say about ET.
No, you aren't.
IAAH
> On 8/22/2010 7:45 AM, Jahnu wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 5:14 pm, JayPee Vee<jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
>>> if not to provoke, troll?
>>
>> Because I despise people who are too stupid to ignore people they
>> don't like or put them in their kill-filter, but in stead bitch and
>> moan endlessly about God and religion.
>
> I don't dislike you. You're just stupid. And it pains me.
>
>> It gives me great pleasure to
>> smash them with facts and see them squirm.
>
> Well, when you start that, will you let us know?
Just take comfort in knowing that the more time he spends making his
nonsensical posts to a.a, the less time he has to pass his nonsense on
to others by breeding.
--
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying
to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the
board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
ilbe...@gmail.com
Sorry, sexual immorality is not condoned by the real Creator and you
are going down the wrong road with belief in Krishna and the entire
higher consciousness thing. Its Jesus you need to follow cause he is
the ONLY way to God . Follow him and you wont fall for sexual
immorality and making excuses so you can continue in it. It will be
worth it . Regards.
Jahnu
> Get a life.
You forget that in terms of a happy, fulfilling, and meaningful life I
am light-years ahead of you.
> No one cares.
Wrong. I care.
AZ Nomad
>On 8/22/2010 7:45 AM, Jahnu wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 5:14 pm, JayPee Vee<jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
>>> if not to provoke, troll?
>>
>> Because I despise people who are too stupid to ignore people they
>> don't like or put them in their kill-filter, but in stead bitch and
>> moan endlessly about God and religion.
>I don't dislike you. You're just stupid. And it pains me.
I dislike ignorant, moronic, yet arrogant assholes like jahnu.
If he had just two of those qualities, I probably wouldn't care, might
even feel pity.
He is like the adult who isn't toilet trained who doesn't just soil
himself, but gets off on getting diahea and them shitting over the
balcony of a movie theater while people are trying to watch a movie.
Christopher A. Lee
A discussion group set up by atheists to discuss atheist issues.
Gods aren't actually an issue.
So Jahnu's pretend friend isn't.
Jahnu himself is an issue because his behaviour makes him one - a
fascinating study on what religion turns people into.
Shabooboo Krishna Update
6748db...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 22, 5:14 pm, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
>> if not to provoke, troll?
>
> Because I despise people who are too stupid to ignore people they
> don't like or put them in their kill-filter, but in stead bitch and
> moan endlessly about God and religion. It gives me great pleasure to
> smash them with facts and see them squirm.
>
> Krishna says:
Please ignore this fucknut. Clearly he is a poor student quoting the words,
but bringing no peace or enlightenment. His guru must be very sad for his
student.
*- Shabooboo Krishna Update -*
Christopher A. Lee
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On 8/22/2010 7:40 AM, Jahnu wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 6:59 pm, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So, when you accurately quote the authorities on the subject (who
>>> actually really DO believe in evolutionary theory), let me know.
>>
>> Who gives a shit what they believe in?
>
>What the what?
>
>> I am simply quoting what they
>> say about ET.
>
>No, you aren't.
I wish people wouldn't call it a belief around theists.
Because it implies their meaning for the word and reinforces their
"evolution is just a belief" lie.
JayPee Vee
> On Aug 22, 5:14 pm, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you post your nonsense to a discussion group called alt.atheism
> > if not to provoke, troll?
>
> Because I despise people who are too stupid to ignore people they
> don't like or put them in their kill-filter, but in stead bitch and
> moan endlessly about God and religion.
False. We don't care about god and religion since there's no god and
"religionists" are mentally-challenged idiots. We merely call idiots
(and trolls) people who act like idiots (and trolls).
It gives me great pleasure to
> smash them with facts and see them squirm.
So, you admit that you're a troll, then...
Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, and btw, you really need to get a life.
JayPee Vee
> On Aug 22, 5:15 pm, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Get a life.
>
> You forget that in terms of a happy, fulfilling, and meaningful life I
> am light-years ahead of you.
I seriously doubt that considering the amount of crap you send here
just to get attention. You're like J Young, but less nasty.
>
> > No one cares.
>
> Wrong. I care.
So you're just like those crackpots who talk to themselves in the
middle of the street?
Thanks for admitting it.
DanielSan
I believe in gravity, too. I don't think we should coddle fundies. We
should smack them around with their stupidity.
Christopher A. Lee
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On 8/22/2010 9:41 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:46:28 -0700, DanielSan
>> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/22/2010 7:40 AM, Jahnu wrote:
>>>> On Aug 22, 6:59 pm, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, when you accurately quote the authorities on the subject (who
>>>>> actually really DO believe in evolutionary theory), let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Who gives a shit what they believe in?
>>>
>>> What the what?
>>>
>>>> I am simply quoting what they
>>>> say about ET.
>>>
>>> No, you aren't.
>>
>> I wish people wouldn't call it a belief around theists.
>>
>> Because it implies their meaning for the word and reinforces their
>> "evolution is just a belief" lie.
>
>I believe in gravity, too. I don't think we should coddle fundies. We
>should smack them around with their stupidity.
So do I - but you have to at least use unambiguous language in an
effort to get the meaning across that you're trying to communicate.
It's too much to expect them to differentiate between different
meanings according to context when everything is filtered through the
context of their perspective.
DanielSan
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:52:46 -0700, DanielSan
> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/2010 9:41 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:46:28 -0700, DanielSan
>>> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2010 7:40 AM, Jahnu wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 22, 6:59 pm, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, when you accurately quote the authorities on the subject (who
>>>>>> actually really DO believe in evolutionary theory), let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who gives a shit what they believe in?
>>>>
>>>> What the what?
>>>>
>>>>> I am simply quoting what they
>>>>> say about ET.
>>>>
>>>> No, you aren't.
>>>
>>> I wish people wouldn't call it a belief around theists.
>>>
>>> Because it implies their meaning for the word and reinforces their
>>> "evolution is just a belief" lie.
>>
>> I believe in gravity, too. I don't think we should coddle fundies. We
>> should smack them around with their stupidity.
>
> So do I - but you have to at least use unambiguous language in an
> effort to get the meaning across that you're trying to communicate.
"Believe" is simply the acceptance of something as true.
You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
> It's too much to expect them to differentiate between different
> meanings according to context when everything is filtered through the
> context of their perspective.
Perhaps, but have to expose their stupidity. Believing in god (with no
factual evidence whatsoever) is the same as believing in Albus
Dumbledoor (also with no factual evidence whatsoever).
DanielSan
And how I spelled Dumbledore "Dumbledoor" I'll never know. *sheepish*
idd
>
> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>
Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
Your position is irrational.
Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
evidence.
So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion. People claiming
to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
belief system. Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
doing so. But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
is precisely what makes it a religion. You can play semantic games
and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
:)
--
idd
Christopher A. Lee
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
I disagree. It's implanted in childhood and most of them can't throw
it off.
In the developed word religious looniness is primarily a US
phenomenon. There were comparatively few loonies in the UK and Western
Europe.
Several things help - the UK hasn't been literalist for at least a
couple of centuries. Science and technology was what get it the
prosperity of the Victorian era. Even scientists who were religious
revised their beliefs in the light of what they discovered, many of
them staying religious.
Science and engineering were popular subjects for growing boys, who
were encouraged to do these as hobbies in the days long before
electricity, TV, DVDs etc.
Although the different education for girls meant tat they were more
religious.
What few fundies there are in the UK are a joke - and they know they
are.
For example Blair admitting after he resigned that he consulted God
before invading Iraq, and that he wished the UK were as religious as
the US - he said he had kept quiet about this because he didn't want
people to think he was a religious nutter.
Most fundies I knew were like that - self aware enough to realise how
they were seen by others.
DanielSan
True, but even if it's implanted in childhood doesn't mean that they're
believing in something factual.
I believed in something that wasn't true when I was young. I don't
believe in it any more.
To me, that's a sign of growing up.
idd
>
> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
> Your position is irrational.
>
> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
> evidence.
>
> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion. People claiming
> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
> belief system. Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
> doing so. But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
> is precisely what makes it a religion. You can play semantic games
> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
> they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
>:)
>
To break it down just a bit,
no_proof != does_not_exist
no_proof == unknown
So people who claim to know either way are going on faith, and cannot
reasonably claim to be "scientific".
HTH!
--
idd
DanielSan
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>
>
> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
> Your position is irrational.
Not really.
>
> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
> evidence.
Don't need to. It's not my job to prove a negative.
> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
Nope. I can say it's a pack of lies because they are adamant that there
is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
believe in leprechauns.
> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
And they do it wrongly.
I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
> People claiming
> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
> belief system.
No. Just as saying that there is no undetectable dragon in my kitchen
is not a faith-based system.
> Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
> doing so.
Be ready to have your mind blown:
I'm an agnostic atheist.
I don't know if there are deities or not because no evidence has ever
been provided. I DO know, however, that the gods that humans believe in
don't exist because there is no evidence for these specific entities.
> But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
> is precisely what makes it a religion.
Yeah, no. Belief in gravity isn't a religion. Belief in science isn't
a religion. Belief that this post will go onto the newsgroup when I hit
send is not a religion.
If you say it is, then "religion" is a meaningless concept.
> You can play semantic games
> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
> they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
Nope. Don't need faith to not believe in a god.
Christopher A. Lee
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On 8/22/2010 11:00 AM, idd wrote:
>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>>
>>
>> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
>
>My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
>religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
>ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
It never occurred to me that people could still believe in gods until
after I had learned to think critically for myself. My first exposure
to them was via the Greek myths.
Never having been raised in a religion it has never occurred to me to
think of them the way theists do.
>> Your position is irrational.
>
>Not really.
>
>>
>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
>> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
>> evidence.
>
>Don't need to. It's not my job to prove a negative.
It is up to these loonies to do several things before talking as if it
were real. They are simply unimportant. So their first step is to make
us think they are relevant to us.
>> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
>> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
>
>Nope. I can say it's a pack of lies because they are adamant that there
>is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
>believe in leprechauns.
I have no idea why they don't get this obvious point.
>> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
>
>And they do it wrongly.
Those that do are fucking morons.
So which not-church do I not-go to, to not-pray to a not-god that I
not-worship, to not-listen to a not-sermon from a not-pulpit to
not-reinforce my not-belief?
>I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
>
>> People claiming
>> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
>> belief system.
>
>No. Just as saying that there is no undetectable dragon in my kitchen
>is not a faith-based system.
They're too stupid to understand it is no different to us.
>> Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
>> doing so.
>
>Be ready to have your mind blown:
>
>I'm an agnostic atheist.
>
>I don't know if there are deities or not because no evidence has ever
>been provided. I DO know, however, that the gods that humans believe in
>don't exist because there is no evidence for these specific entities.
Never having gods implanted in my worldview as anything other than
characters in mythology, I don't have anything to be agnostic about.
>> But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
>> is precisely what makes it a religion.
Why does the liar keep repeating these lies?
>Yeah, no. Belief in gravity isn't a religion. Belief in science isn't
>a religion. Belief that this post will go onto the newsgroup when I hit
>send is not a religion.
The trouble is that in this morons "mind" everything is a belief.
>If you say it is, then "religion" is a meaningless concept.
>
>> You can play semantic games
You're the only one doing that.
>> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
>> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
>> they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
Where does the liar get these lies from?
>Nope. Don't need faith to not believe in a god.
Just like all the other religious loonies, he can't understand why it
isn't as "real" as it is to him.
So he invents all sorts of rationalisations, most of which are just
plain nasty.
Steve Knight
wrote:
>On Aug 22, 6:59 am, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> So THAT is where malaria and luekemia and MS
>> and Alzheimers comes from - your "loving" god.
Snip.
> God has created the material
>world as a place full of suffering and misery.
Well. since you put it like that, what's not to love.
Got any extra pink sheets?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
idd
> On 8/22/2010 11:00 AM, idd wrote:
>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>>
>>
>> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
>
> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
> religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
>
That's interesting...
My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
atheism and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for the
non-existence of a deity.
>> Your position is irrational.
>
> Not really.
>
Incorrect.
>>
>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
>> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
>> evidence.
>
> Don't need to. It's not my job to prove a negative.
>
So it's your job to just actively believe in the nonexistence of God,
without proof? You call people who believe in God "stupid", yet you
are using the exact same kind of thinking, just with the opposite bias.
>> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
>> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
>
> Nope. I can say it's a pack of lies because they are adamant that there
> is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
> believe in leprechauns.
>
Actually, it does take faith to categorically state that leprechauns do
not exist. An objective person will have to admit that while they may
consider it supremely unlikely, they simply do not know for certain.
>> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
>
> And they do it wrongly.
>
Incorrect, and I have already proven that with your help. :)
> I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
>
Irrelevant attempt at semantic game playing noted...
>> People claiming
>> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
>> belief system.
>
> No. Just as saying that there is no undetectable dragon in my kitchen
> is not a faith-based system.
>
You just don't get scientific process at *all*, do you? :D
I can easily take your position and insist you must prove there is no dragon
in your kitchen. You, of course, cannot prove this. So now, I must call you
an idiot who believes a pack of lies. Because you have no evidence for your
beliefs, and are therefore a non-thinking subhumani, LOL. Hey, this is fun!
>> Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
>> doing so.
>
> Be ready to have your mind blown:
>
> I'm an agnostic atheist.
>
No, you are not. You have already shown there is no open-mindedness on your
part with your choice of words. Busted, pal. The favorite tool of the atheist,
disingenuousness, has been exposed and you can't credibly pull that crap anymore.
Not with me. :)
> I don't know if there are deities or not because no evidence has ever
> been provided. I DO know, however, that the gods that humans believe in
> don't exist because there is no evidence for these specific entities.
>
*There's* the flaw in your thinking:
You believe that lack of proof for the existence of something equals proof
of the non-existence of that thing. I assure you, it does not and you are
therefore subscribing to a logical fallacy.
>> But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
>> is precisely what makes it a religion.
>
> Yeah, no. Belief in gravity isn't a religion. Belief in science isn't
> a religion. Belief that this post will go onto the newsgroup when I hit
> send is not a religion.
>
Nonsense, just be honest please.
You have an irrational belief that something which cannot be proven not to
exist does not exist. Not because it's been proven to not exist (it hasn't),
but because you *choose* to believe that. If you choose to pretend that's
not a religious belief, you're only fooling yourself. Feel free to substitute
"belief system" for "religion" if you must, but it's all the same.
> If you say it is, then "religion" is a meaningless concept.
>
What I say does not cause the definition of words to change. That is your idea.
:)
>> You can play semantic games
>> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
>> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
>> they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
>
> Nope. Don't need faith to not believe in a god.
>
That's true, but it takes faith to call my religion "a pack of lies".
You can get squirmy with semantic games but it doesn't fool me.
--
idd
idd
I am not a "he", and apparently you do not even have the mental capacity
to follow a discussion.
But you're calling *me* a moron?
Hilarious...
Shouldn't you be getting back to your homework for those remedial summer
school classes, so you can advance to the tenth grade?
--
idd
DanielSan
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2010 11:00 AM, idd wrote:
>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
>>
>> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
>> religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
>> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
>>
>
> That's interesting...
> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
> atheism and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for the
> non-existence of a deity.
>
Don't need to. You don't need to prove a negative.
>>> Your position is irrational.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>
> Incorrect.
>
>>>
>>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
>>> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Don't need to. It's not my job to prove a negative.
>>
>
> So it's your job to just actively believe in the nonexistence of God,
> without proof?
Sorry, but what? "Believe in the nonexistence of God"? How does that work?
Do you have a hobby of not-collecting Pez dispensers?
> You call people who believe in God "stupid", yet you
> are using the exact same kind of thinking, just with the opposite bias.
>
>>> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
>>> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
>>
>> Nope. I can say it's a pack of lies because they are adamant that there
>> is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
>> believe in leprechauns.
>>
>
> Actually, it does take faith to categorically state that leprechauns do
> not exist. An objective person will have to admit that while they may
> consider it supremely unlikely, they simply do not know for certain.
Actually, no. I can categorically state that I do not own a single
basketball.
>
>>> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
>>
>> And they do it wrongly.
>>
>
> Incorrect, and I have already proven that with your help. :)
Not at all. You didn't prove anything.
>
>> I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
>>
>
> Irrelevant attempt at semantic game playing noted...
Handwaving noted. Religion is an active belief system. Atheism is not.
>
>>> People claiming
>>> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
>>> belief system.
>>
>> No. Just as saying that there is no undetectable dragon in my kitchen
>> is not a faith-based system.
>>
>
> You just don't get scientific process at *all*, do you? :D
I actually do.
> I can easily take your position and insist you must prove there is no dragon
> in your kitchen.
No. Look up falsifiability.
> You, of course, cannot prove this. So now, I must call you
> an idiot who believes a pack of lies. Because you have no evidence for your
> beliefs, and are therefore a non-thinking subhumani, LOL. Hey, this is fun!
And stupid because you don't even know what you're talking about.
>
>>> Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
>>> doing so.
>>
>> Be ready to have your mind blown:
>>
>> I'm an agnostic atheist.
>>
>
> No, you are not.
Yes, I am.
> You have already shown there is no open-mindedness on your
> part with your choice of words.
If you want to lie, that's your prerogative. But that doesn't advance
your argument any.
> Busted, pal. The favorite tool of the atheist,
> disingenuousness, has been exposed and you can't credibly pull that crap anymore.
> Not with me. :)
You don't even know what you're talking about much less exposing anything.
>
>> I don't know if there are deities or not because no evidence has ever
>> been provided. I DO know, however, that the gods that humans believe in
>> don't exist because there is no evidence for these specific entities.
>>
>
> *There's* the flaw in your thinking:
> You believe
*BZZZT!* WRONG! I don't believe.
> that lack of proof for the existence of something equals proof
> of the non-existence of that thing.
I didn't say "lack of proof". I said "lack of evidence".
> I assure you, it does not and you are
> therefore subscribing to a logical fallacy.
See "Shifting the Burden of Proof" for more information.
>
>>> But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
>>> is precisely what makes it a religion.
>>
>> Yeah, no. Belief in gravity isn't a religion. Belief in science isn't
>> a religion. Belief that this post will go onto the newsgroup when I hit
>> send is not a religion.
>>
>
> Nonsense, just be honest please.
I'm being bluntly honest.
> You have an irrational belief that something which cannot be proven not to
> exist does not exist.
No, I don't.
> Not because it's been proven to not exist (it hasn't),
> but because you *choose* to believe that. If you choose to pretend that's
> not a religious belief, you're only fooling yourself. Feel free to substitute
> "belief system" for "religion" if you must, but it's all the same.
More lies from the idiot.
>
>> If you say it is, then "religion" is a meaningless concept.
>>
>
> What I say does not cause the definition of words to change. That is your idea.
> :)
Your own definition of "religion" is flawed.
>
>>> You can play semantic games
>>> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
>>> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
>>> they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
>>
>> Nope. Don't need faith to not believe in a god.
>>
>
> That's true, but it takes faith to call my religion "a pack of lies".
> You can get squirmy with semantic games but it doesn't fool me.
Nope. Doesn't take faith to say that either, because it's based on
known falsehoods.
idd
> On 8/22/2010 12:21 PM, idd wrote:
>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2010 11:00 AM, idd wrote:
>>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>>>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
>>>
>>> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
>>> religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
>>> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
>>>
>>
>> That's interesting...
>> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
>> atheism and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
>> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for the
>> non-existence of a deity.
>>
>
> Don't need to. You don't need to prove a negative.
>
Really?
Then I believe that you don't exist.
No proof necessary, right? You never call or come by, that's good enough
for me! :D
Gosh, you're disappointing. I had really hoped you could think more critically.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
>>>> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> Don't need to. It's not my job to prove a negative.
>>>
>>
>> So it's your job to just actively believe in the nonexistence of God,
>> without proof?
>
> Sorry, but what? "Believe in the nonexistence of God"? How does that work?
>
You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
> Do you have a hobby of not-collecting Pez dispensers?
>
That trick doesn't work, haven't you noticed? I can't tell if it's dishonesty
or stupidity on your part, no offense.
The distinction here is that you insist that belief in God is "a pack of lies".
You're not just casually saying, "Oh, you could be right but I'm just not
feeling that whole God thing". No. What you're saying is, "people who believe in
in God are MORONS because they believe in a pack of lies". Big difference.
*Prove* there is no God or admit you are indulging in a faith-based belief
system.
>
>> You call people who believe in God "stupid", yet you
>> are using the exact same kind of thinking, just with the opposite bias.
>>
>>>> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
>>>> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
>>>
>>> Nope. I can say it's a pack of lies because they are adamant that there
>>> is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
>>> believe in leprechauns.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it does take faith to categorically state that leprechauns do
>> not exist. An objective person will have to admit that while they may
>> consider it supremely unlikely, they simply do not know for certain.
>
> Actually, no. I can categorically state that I do not own a single
> basketball.
>
Are you hallucinating?
>>
>>>> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
>>>
>>> And they do it wrongly.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect, and I have already proven that with your help. :)
>
> Not at all. You didn't prove anything.
>
Yes, and you have also. You have proven that you do not understand
basic principles of critical thinking and have no right to call others
"morons".
>>
>>> I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
>>>
>>
>> Irrelevant attempt at semantic game playing noted...
>
> Handwaving noted. Religion is an active belief system. Atheism is not.
>
Yours is. Anyone who claims to know that belief in God is "a pack of lies"
is indulging in faith. I've actually known people who admit they don't
know whether or not ±God exists, they're called agnostics and they have
no religious belief. Anyone claiming to "know" there is no God, however,
is definitely indulging in a faith-based belief system.
Pretending otherwise just makes you look really, really stupid.
A±nyway, at this point ±I can see you have no interest/ability to be serious
or honest, so let's cut to the chase 'cause I'm out of time here.
>>>
>>
>> That's true, but it takes faith to call my religion "a pack of lies".
>> You can get squirmy with semantic games but it doesn't fool me.
>
> Nope. Doesn't take faith to say that either, because it's based on
> known falsehoods.
>
"Known falsehoods"?
Citations, please...
Feel free to be very specific.
Which known falsehoods, when, where, and by whom this proof was presented,
etc. Gotta go, I'll try to check back in a few hours.
--
idd
DanielSan
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2010 12:21 PM, idd wrote:
>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2010 11:00 AM, idd wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>>>>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
>>>>
>>>> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
>>>> religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
>>>> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's interesting...
>>> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
>>> atheism and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
>>> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for the
>>> non-existence of a deity.
>>>
>>
>> Don't need to. You don't need to prove a negative.
>>
>
> Really?
Yes, really.
> Then I believe that you don't exist.
*bzzt*
It's possible to believe in false things.
> No proof necessary, right? You never call or come by, that's good enough
> for me! :D
That's a strike at faith, not atheism.
>
> Gosh, you're disappointing. I had really hoped you could think more critically.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
>>>>> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Don't need to. It's not my job to prove a negative.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So it's your job to just actively believe in the nonexistence of God,
>>> without proof?
>>
>> Sorry, but what? "Believe in the nonexistence of God"? How does that work?
>>
>
> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
I'm still fuzzy on how that is supposed to work.
>
>> Do you have a hobby of not-collecting Pez dispensers?
>>
>
> That trick doesn't work, haven't you noticed? I can't tell if it's dishonesty
> or stupidity on your part, no offense.
So, you don't get the comparison?
>
> The distinction here is that you insist that belief in God is "a pack of lies".
> You're not just casually saying, "Oh, you could be right but I'm just not
> feeling that whole God thing". No. What you're saying is, "people who believe in
> in God are MORONS because they believe in a pack of lies". Big difference.
Because they have not provided a single solitary shred of evidence for
the existence of God.
> *Prove* there is no God or admit you are indulging in a faith-based belief
> system.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
>>> You call people who believe in God "stupid", yet you
>>> are using the exact same kind of thinking, just with the opposite bias.
>>>
>>>>> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
>>>>> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. I can say it's a pack of lies because they are adamant that there
>>>> is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
>>>> believe in leprechauns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, it does take faith to categorically state that leprechauns do
>>> not exist. An objective person will have to admit that while they may
>>> consider it supremely unlikely, they simply do not know for certain.
>>
>> Actually, no. I can categorically state that I do not own a single
>> basketball.
>>
>
> Are you hallucinating?
No. I don't own a single basketball.
>>>>> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
>>>>
>>>> And they do it wrongly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Incorrect, and I have already proven that with your help. :)
>>
>> Not at all. You didn't prove anything.
>>
>
> Yes, and you have also. You have proven that you do not understand
> basic principles of critical thinking and have no right to call others
> "morons".
Okay, please show evidence that I have "proven" this.
>
>>>
>>>> I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant attempt at semantic game playing noted...
>>
>> Handwaving noted. Religion is an active belief system. Atheism is not.
>>
>
> Yours is. Anyone who claims to know that belief in God is "a pack of lies"
> is indulging in faith.
Nope.
> I've actually known people who admit they don't
> know whether or not God exists, they're called agnostics and they have
> no religious belief.
Agnosticism is different from atheism. Try to keep that in mind.
Gnosisticism = knowledge
Theism = belief
Agnosticism = lack of knowledge
Atheism = lack of belief.
> Anyone claiming to "know" there is no God, however,
> is definitely indulging in a faith-based belief system.
Nope. I categorically state that God does not exist nor do I have a
"faith based belief system".
Quite simply put, it is impossible for God to exist.
> Pretending otherwise just makes you look really, really stupid.
> A±nyway, at this point ±I can see you have no interest/ability to be serious
> or honest, so let's cut to the chase 'cause I'm out of time here.
Brave Sir idd ran away
Bravely ran away away
When logic rears its ugly head
Brave Sir idd turned his tail and fled
Bravest of the brave, Sir idd!
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's true, but it takes faith to call my religion "a pack of lies".
>>> You can get squirmy with semantic games but it doesn't fool me.
>>
>> Nope. Doesn't take faith to say that either, because it's based on
>> known falsehoods.
>>
>
> "Known falsehoods"?
> Citations, please...
> Feel free to be very specific.
> Which known falsehoods, when, where, and by whom this proof was presented,
> etc. Gotta go, I'll try to check back in a few hours.
Sure.
God is all knowing, all good, all powerful, and all perfect. Evil
exists. Therefore, God does not. QED.
Need more?
Fine.
If God is perfect, He could not create an imperfect thing. He would be
able to create a being with free will that won't be a robot but will
always choose the right path. Evil exists so God is not perfect.
If God is all good, then He would not allow evil to exist. Evil exists,
so either God is not all good or He's not all powerful. Unless he
doesn't know about it.
If God is all powerful, then He would not allow evil to exist. Evil
exists so God is not all good or not all powerful. Unless He doesn't
know about it...
If God is all knowing, then He would know about all evil before it even
happens.
So, God cannot be all knowing, all good, all powerful, and all perfect
if evil exists in the world.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Christopher A. Lee
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>
>I'm still fuzzy on how that is supposed to work.
It's a standard theist stupidity from somebody who can't grasp the
fact that there is a "rest-of-the-world" beyond his religion let alone
people outside it.
>>> Do you have a hobby of not-collecting Pez dispensers?
>>>
>>
>> That trick doesn't work, haven't you noticed? I can't tell if it's dishonesty
>> or stupidity on your part, no offense.
>
>So, you don't get the comparison?
He has to pretend he doesn't understand points because he is in
serious denial, and his fantasy would tumble like house of cards if he
acknowledged them.
idd
>>
>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>
> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>
Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
Unfortunately for you I have zero interest in debating dishonest people
who keep moving the goalposts. First you insist faith in God is a "pack
of lies", then you call those who have such faith "morons" and "idiots",
proving that you indeed do strongly believe there is no God, thus exposing
your actual, faith-based belief system for what it is. But sadly, when I
call you on that you resort to lies, subterfuge, disingenuousness, and
absurdities like pez and basketball.
You are defeated and aren't smart enough to understand that, so there is
no point at all in continuing, there's simply nothing in it for me.
But thanks for participating. Some intelligent, inquisitive person may
see this thread and understand that atheists are full of crap and that
may help them along in their journey.
See? Eveyone serves the Supreme Lord, directly or otherwise -- even you.
:)
And I know you're trying hard to pretend otherwise, but when you insisted
that faith in God is "a pack of lies" you, sir, incurred the burden of
proof -- if you insist God doesn't exist (yes I know, you tried to
backpedal from that one, but we can see what you really believe by what
you say) then YOU have taken on the burden of proof.
You have not only lost, but you have proven yourself utterly unworthy of
any further consideration. In fact, the difference between you and Jahnu
is very slight -- you are a rabid, brainwashed True Believer same as him.
You just believe the opposite things.
Oh, and BTW -- QED doesn't mean what you appear to think it means...
:)
--
idd
DanielSan
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>
>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>
>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>
>
> Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
How?
> Unfortunately for you I have zero interest in debating dishonest people
> who keep moving the goalposts.
Oh?
> First you insist faith in God is a "pack
> of lies", then you call those who have such faith "morons" and "idiots",
> proving that you indeed do strongly believe there is no God,
Oh, I'm so sorry, but you are now disqualified because you have lied.
Bye now.
Free Lunch
>On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>
>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>
>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>
>
>Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>Unfortunately for you I have zero interest in debating dishonest people
>who keep moving the goalposts. First you insist faith in God is a "pack
>of lies", then you call those who have such faith "morons" and "idiots",
>proving that you indeed do strongly believe there is no God, thus exposing
>your actual, faith-based belief system for what it is. But sadly, when I
>call you on that you resort to lies, subterfuge, disingenuousness, and
>absurdities like pez and basketball.
>
>You are defeated and aren't smart enough to understand that, so there is
>no point at all in continuing, there's simply nothing in it for me.
We'll be happy to see you go. You've offered nothing useful here and you
appear to need to take a remedial class in logic.
>But thanks for participating. Some intelligent, inquisitive person may
>see this thread and understand that atheists are full of crap and that
>may help them along in their journey.
Atheists have only one thing in common, a lack of belief in any gods.
>See? Eveyone serves the Supreme Lord, directly or otherwise -- even you.
What lord is that? Is it one you actually have evidence for?
>:)
>
>And I know you're trying hard to pretend otherwise, but when you insisted
>that faith in God is "a pack of lies" you, sir, incurred the burden of
>proof -- if you insist God doesn't exist (yes I know, you tried to
>backpedal from that one, but we can see what you really believe by what
>you say) then YOU have taken on the burden of proof.
I wouldn't know about faith being anything at all useful. Sure, Twain
defined it as knowin' what ain't so, but even a more fair definition
shows that faith is unsubstantiated.
>You have not only lost, but you have proven yourself utterly unworthy of
>any further consideration. In fact, the difference between you and Jahnu
>is very slight -- you are a rabid, brainwashed True Believer same as him.
>You just believe the opposite things.
>
>Oh, and BTW -- QED doesn't mean what you appear to think it means...
>:)
>
I believe nothing about gods.
Do you believe in all gods?
idd
> On 22 Aug 2010 23:49:35 GMT, idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>>
>>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>>
>>
>>Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
>
> You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
> support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
> assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>
Not sure whether it's your reading comprehension or what, but you clearly
did NOT understand this thread.
For the last time:
If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
is on you. Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
In fact not once during that debate did I argue that there is a God.
I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
But I guess you guys aren't smart enough to get that.
> We'll be happy to see you go. You've offered nothing useful here and you
> appear to need to take a remedial class in logic.
>
Yeah okay whatever, genius. I'm not going anywhere, it's you who keep
posting to alt.religion.vaishnava. I do not read alt.atheism. Stop
x-posting and you'll see me no more, how simple is that? Why, it's as
simple as understanding that lack of proof for existence of God does
not equal proof of the non-existence of God. Oh, but you have trouble
with that one, don't you....
--
idd
Free Lunch
>On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 22 Aug 2010 23:49:35 GMT, idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
>>
>> You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
>> support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
>> assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>>
>
>Not sure whether it's your reading comprehension or what, but you clearly
>did NOT understand this thread.
>
>For the last time:
>If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>is on you.
Depends on the circumstances.
>Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
>In fact not once during that debate did I argue that there is a God.
That is wise.
>I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
>since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
Or it is a matter of logical conclusion, depending on whether you are
looking at a specifically defined god that cannot exist because the
attributes of that god are inconsistent with known physical attributes
of the universe or some generic meaningless god that theists love to
trot out to say "you can't prove this god doesn't exist."
>But I guess you guys aren't smart enough to get that.
>
>> We'll be happy to see you go. You've offered nothing useful here and you
>> appear to need to take a remedial class in logic.
>>
>
>Yeah okay whatever, genius. I'm not going anywhere, it's you who keep
>posting to alt.religion.vaishnava. I do not read alt.atheism. Stop
>x-posting
I've only seen your work in a.a. You are posting in a.a. If you don't
want discussion with people in a.a. don't cross-post here.
>and you'll see me no more, how simple is that? Why, it's as
>simple as understanding that lack of proof for existence of God does
>not equal proof of the non-existence of God. Oh, but you have trouble
>with that one, don't you....
The god described in the Bible cannot exist.
walksalone
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>
>
> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
Real life observations need to be presented in a manner that the majorty of
people I've encountered, don't do.
There is no need for scientific objectivity, other than to avoid hurting
your feelings.
> Your position is irrational.
Actually, it's spot on.
>
> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical
> evidence. Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of
> physical evidence.
Look at those goal posts move out over the horizon.
Indeed in relation to be revealed at odds of the desert, evidence is not
available because, apparently they have failed to show a horizon of
history.
We can take Wightman written about them, and we can put them in to the
test.
They are rather effete and incapable of doing anything themselves according
to their written words. Their followers on the other hand, are quite
capable of extreme violence. And history verifies is beyond reasonable
doubt.
No lady, and I'm using the term very loosely, any set of deities to suffer
from a severe case of lacka, such as yours, cannot be shown to exist but
can be shown not to exist in any reasonable use of the English language or
any other language.
> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
Depends on which god, the word god in a noun that has been ripped off and
claimed to refer to one god, and only that god. That is a lie.
Dogs are claimed to be many things, & claim to have many so-called power.
In reality, it would help one commonality, one shared attribute used by the
various claims. They must be supernatural. For your viewing pleasure,
here's a small list of the gods of humanity. Few free to tell us which one
of these guys you do not believe him, and provide ample evidence that you
might know what you are talking about.
<for the regulars, you have been warned>
Kaikara
Age
Diang
Nyakaya
Nyavirezi
Tule
Chikara
Chiuke
Deng
Mawu
Mugasa
Ndjambi
Orisania
Sodza
Soko
Sore-Gus
Topoh
Yayu
Jok
Ngunuwo
NommoJ
Vodu
Akongo
Alatangana
Amma
Aondo
Apap
Arebati
Ataa Naa Nyongmo
Bumba
Cagu
Cghene
Fidi Mukullu
Hao
Kalisia
Imana
Kalunga
Ka Tyeleo
Kwoth
Kyumbe
Lesa
Libanza
Lisa
Mbomba
Mbongo
Mbotumbo
Mkulumncandi
Mungu
Ngai
Niamye
Nyame
Nzambi
Oduduwa
Osanobua
Pemba
Raluvimbha
Rubanga
Sa
Suku
Toro
Tororut
Tsunigoab
Umvelinkwangi
Unumbote
Waka
Wed Kumbamb
Yaro
Yemekonji
Gaunab
Itonde
Now, your mission is to successfully establish that any of the above gods
do not in fact exist, and never have existed. Of course you realize, that
means you are an atheist or that god is concern, or goddess. Just to play
fair, I included a couple of creator gods.
> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
Faith is not required when evidence is at hand. We know where does not
work because, the world is still not at peace and amputees are still among
us. Not to mention the various characters of your gods have given
children, just because they can. I can think of no other reason or a child
to have a cancer, and I cant think of a good reason under any
circumstances. But to pretend a god he reached out a cancer is a rather
sick way of claiming supremacy for your god.
> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion. People claiming
That's alright, many theists actually believe there is a god. In spite of
of the lack of evidence. Or the need.
> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
> belief system. Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
Not at all. If a god failed to live up to its attributes, it does not
matter how may people claim it exists. The fact is, it might as well not
exist or it does not exist. Does not exist it makes more sense, but
escaped when a god and claimed a good guy. Just out of curiosity,
presuming you xian, when the big one of Israel become a nice guy is still
an outright bastard? Where can I find that information in the Old
Testament, and yes, I do know where.
> doing so. But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
There's a difference between a belief, active, and a lack of belief,
passive. You are not emotionally equipped to understand that difference,
nor have you been trained by your fearless leaders to understand, not all
humans have the same shortcomings.
And why should they teach you that, they would lose money and power.
> is precisely what makes it a religion. You can play semantic games
Like you're trying to do?
> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has
> decided they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
>:)
Not at all. In the case of the new goddess visit, it is a pack of lies.
We know we cannot account which anything on their own, differently a lack
of power. We know there is suffering & misery throughout the world, give
me a lack of compassion from an all loving god. We know by definition, the
believer's definition, it cannot create a mock you cannot lift. Therefore,
it's not all powerful.
In other words, it's nothing like described on the package. If truth in
advertising applied to religion, there would be none.
Now if you don't mind, I've got something really important to attend to.
I'm not sure exactly what it will be, but it will definitely be an
improvement and much more important than the time I just wasted. Why do I
call it wasted, because you are not in a position to understand rational
and coherent thought about emotional issues such as your god.
walksalone who is extremely bored right now, but that's quite alright. I
do not read the atheist newsgroup to learn things from xians, they've
already established that they are bigots and not people who understand
their mythology. Not all them are, but in the current crop I cant imagine
worn out the guilt for being a so-called xian by their actions.
PS, the bonus question is, what was the name of Adams first wife.
Step one: Post off topic. Show total disregard for the purpose of the
comments section. Better still, post the exact same thing in the
comments section of several totally unrelated articles.
Step two: Make sure you give a gloss of politeness to your post.
Step three: Be sure not to actually read anything on the site, just
launch your attack. Do not seek answers, and do not question your own
position. You already know you're right; either of the above would
merely be matching wits with the Devil!
Step four: When you get a response, make sure you point out how
puzzled you are that they are not yet totally convinced. Be sure to
ask "why so much anger". Point out the character flaws which are
surely the cause of their incredulity. Do not engage any of the
points
raised, do not under any circumstances enter into real dialogue; then
repeat your original post as if nothing else has yet been added to
the
discussion.
Step five: If asked a direct question, ignore it. Accuse everyone
else
of not answering your questions.
Step six: If they are still not convinced, repeat steps four and
five.
Step seven: If anyone calls you up on any of our incoherence, poor
reasoning, dishonesty or blatant lies; ignore step two. Be sure to
whip yourself up into a self-righteous frenzy, bemoan the fact that
all you want is an honest discussion, to share opinions. Tell them
how much God loves them. Tell them they'll spend an eternity in Hell.
Step eight: Leave, never to be heard from again, shaking the
metaphorical dust from your metaphorical sandals as you go.
(If only we'd be so fortunate)
Ken <flak...@aol.com>
idd
> On 23 Aug 2010 00:19:32 GMT, idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>For the last time:
>>If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>>is on you.
>
> Depends on the circumstances.
>
No, it doesn't. Making unfounded assertions is *always* an invitation.
You're inviting someone to say, "prove it".
>
>>I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
>>since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
>
> Or it is a matter of logical conclusion, depending on whether you are
> looking at a specifically defined god that cannot exist because the
> attributes of that god are inconsistent with known physical attributes
> of the universe or some generic meaningless god that theists love to
> trot out to say "you can't prove this god doesn't exist."
>
It's really simple here: one person said "there is no God" and went on
to call people who believe otherwise "morons" and "idiots".
That, of course, requires faith. Because knowledge of such a thing is
impossible. Unless you can prove it, of course. I'm open minded.
:)
Was Ghandi an "idiot"? Mother Theresa a "moron"?
Hardly!
>>Yeah okay whatever, genius. I'm not going anywhere, it's you who keep
>>posting to alt.religion.vaishnava. I do not read alt.atheism.
>
> I've only seen your work in a.a. You are posting in a.a. If you don't
> want discussion with people in a.a. don't cross-post here.
>
I never initiate xposting. Never. So it isn't on me, it's on you guys.
If you don't xpost to alt.religion.vaisnava, I don't read it and won't
reply. If I reply to a xpost though, it will usually stay xposted.
That's my policy since 1996 and I won't be changing it.
>
> The god described in the Bible cannot exist.
Yes, I agree. Even *I* would never throw someone into a pit of fire for
all eternity, not even Hitler. And God *must* be nicer than me. :)
The God of the Old Testament comes off as a big, fat, jerk and I don't
blame people for being so freaked out by that that they become atheists.
I did too years ago, before I started to understand a little better.
But no person can show you that God exists. If He wants you to know
He'll show you himself when the time is right. So I don't waste a
lot of time trying to convince anyone, it's pretty much a waste to
do that. Just that when someone makes claims of superior knowledge
(specifically "there is no God, y'all are morons") I have to point
out that that position is as tenuous as Jimmy Swaggart's. :)
--
idd
idd
> idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:8dd6ti...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>>>
>>
>> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
>
> Real life observations need to be presented in a manner that the majorty of
> people I've encountered, don't do.
>
> There is no need for scientific objectivity, other than to avoid hurting
> your feelings.
>
>> Your position is irrational.
>
> Actually, it's spot on.
>
>>
>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical
>> evidence. Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of
>> physical evidence.
>
> Look at those goal posts move out over the horizon.
>
Umm, no.
That's just you hallucinating.
--
idd
DanielSan
> On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 22 Aug 2010 23:49:35 GMT, idd<i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
>>
>> You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
>> support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
>> assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>>
>
> Not sure whether it's your reading comprehension or what, but you clearly
> did NOT understand this thread.
>
> For the last time:
> If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
> is on you.
Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.
> Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
The third grader is smarter than you.
idd
> On 8/22/2010 5:19 PM, idd wrote:
>> On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> On 22 Aug 2010 23:49:35 GMT, idd<i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>>>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
>>>
>>> You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
>>> support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
>>> assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure whether it's your reading comprehension or what, but you clearly
>> did NOT understand this thread.
>>
>> For the last time:
>> If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>> is on you.
>
> Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.
>
Then you really should stop doing it.
Assertions were made, I pointed out the unfounded nature of said
assertions, and now -- due apparently to the prejudices of the people
in this group -- you all act as if *I* made the unfounded asserions.
I did not. All I did was point out that faith is required to state
categorically "there is no God".
Unless of course you actually *do* have proof and are just being
stingy with it...
>> Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
>
> The third grader is smarter than you.
>
Says the poster who can't understand even the simplest of logic.
--
idd
Richo
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
> > smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>
> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
> Your position is irrational.
>
In what way?
> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
> evidence.
>
True - but irrelavent.
DanielSan cannot probve the non existence of God - therefore he cannot
detect people lying?
How does that work?
> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
Well someone can have a belief in god and lie about all sorts of
things.
They can say "I can prove God!" for example - and thats a lie whether
or not God exists.
> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
Stupid people say stupid things.
> People claiming
> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
> belief system.
Who cares? They are as rare as hens teeth.
> Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
> doing so.
Most atheists are agnostic.
> But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
> is precisely what makes it a religion.
That isnt what atheism is.
Atheism is the disbelief or denial of gods.
However even if it was (which it isnt) that wouldnt make it a religion
- a religion is a *system* of beliefs and practices that define a
persons relationship with the divine or the ultimate.
A single belief is not a religion.
"I believe in a creator God" for example is not a religion as it is a
single belief.
"God has a big red hat" is not a religion even though it is a belief
about god.
It could be a part of a religion - but no single belief can be a
religion.
>You can play semantic games
No thanks.
Mark.
DanielSan
> On 2010-08-23, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2010 5:19 PM, idd wrote:
>>> On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On 22 Aug 2010 23:49:35 GMT, idd<i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>>>>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
>>>>
>>>> You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
>>>> support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
>>>> assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure whether it's your reading comprehension or what, but you clearly
>>> did NOT understand this thread.
>>>
>>> For the last time:
>>> If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>>> is on you.
>>
>> Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.
>>
>
> Then you really should stop doing it.
I haven't.
>
> Assertions were made,
No, they weren't.
> I pointed out the unfounded nature of said
> assertions,
What assertion? I haven't claimed anything.
> and now -- due apparently to the prejudices of the people
> in this group -- you all act as if *I* made the unfounded asserions.
Nope. But you have tried to shift the burden of proof onto those that
haven't made a claim.
> I did not. All I did was point out that faith is required to state
> categorically "there is no God".
Which is a bogus statement. Categorically stating that there is no God
is not a claim.
> Unless of course you actually *do* have proof and are just being
> stingy with it...
Sure. Define "God" and I'll attempt to assess it.
>
>>> Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
>>
>> The third grader is smarter than you.
>>
>
> Says the poster who can't understand even the simplest of logic.
If you knew logic then you'd know that you don't have to prove or
evidence a negative.
Steve Knight
>For the last time:
>If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>is on you. Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
>In fact not once during that debate did I argue that there is a God.
>I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
>since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
The usual Apologetic bullshit. Shift the burden.
There is no god(s). Just like there is no Superman or Easter Bunny.
All three are logically equal. You just equate a god as being 'more'
important than the Easter Bunny. But there is just as much evident to
support the Easter Bunny as your god. Isn't that pathetic!
I work in a skilled nursing facility and I can tell you from
personal experience, from the mind numbing suffering I've seen, that
there is no god.
You religers sit back and are mostly insulated while judging the
world and people like us. Arm chair preachers without a clue.
Fuck you.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
idd
Goodbye, troll.
Not impressed by your childish inability to take
responsibility for your words.
PLONK
--
idd
idd
> On 23 Aug 2010 00:19:32 GMT, idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>>For the last time:
>>If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>>is on you. Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
>>In fact not once during that debate did I argue that there is a God.
>>I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
>>since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
>
> The usual Apologetic bullshit. Shift the burden.
>
That is what *you're* doing, you mental midget.
PLONK
--
idd
idd
>
> That isnt what atheism is.
> Atheism is the disbelief or denial of gods.
>
Theoretically. But clearly you haven't really been paying attention
to this discussion, or you'd know that I already adressed everything
you said.
--
idd
DanielSan
> Goodbye, troll.
> Not impressed by your childish inability to take
> responsibility for your words.
And thus, idd runs away.
DanielSan
He's going to have to plonk a whole lotta people to hide from logic. :)
Jahnu
> So, you admit that you're a troll, then...
Learn the definition of a troll, idiot.
> Thanks for clearing that up.
> Oh, and btw, you really need to get a life.
A life like you have? No thanks. That would be like living in hell.
You have nothing to look forward to except misery, disease, old age,
and an undignified death. Compered to you I live in heaven.
Krishna says:
The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully
devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss
from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me. (Bg.10.9)
Jahnu
> I believed in something that wasn't true when I was young. I don't
> believe in it any more.
You have merely exchanged one inane belief with another.
> To me, that's a sign of growing up.
Growing up? To let TV and some idiot in a white coat define reality
for you, you call that growing up?! hahaha :)
Krishna says:
To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give
the understanding by which they can come to Me.
(Bg. 10.10)
DanielSan
> On Aug 22, 11:09 pm, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> I believed in something that wasn't true when I was young. I don't
>> believe in it any more.
>
> You have merely exchanged one inane belief with another.
What's this "other belief"?
>
>> To me, that's a sign of growing up.
>
> Growing up? To let TV and some idiot in a white coat define reality
> for you, you call that growing up?!
What?
Free Lunch
>On 2010-08-23, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2010 5:19 PM, idd wrote:
>>> On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On 22 Aug 2010 23:49:35 GMT, idd<i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
>>>>>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
>>>>
>>>> You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
>>>> support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
>>>> assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure whether it's your reading comprehension or what, but you clearly
>>> did NOT understand this thread.
>>>
>>> For the last time:
>>> If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>>> is on you.
>>
>> Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.
>>
>
>Then you really should stop doing it.
>
>Assertions were made, I pointed out the unfounded nature of said
>assertions, and now -- due apparently to the prejudices of the people
>in this group -- you all act as if *I* made the unfounded asserions.
Please tell us why it is unreasonable to say _tentatively_ that X does
not exist when absolutely no evidence for X exists.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/22/2010 6:58 PM, idd wrote:
>> On 2010-08-23, Steve Knight<skni...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 23 Aug 2010 00:19:32 GMT, idd<i...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For the last time:
>>>> If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
>>>> is on you. Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
>>>> In fact not once during that debate did I argue that there is a God.
>>>> I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
>>>> since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
>>>
>>> The usual Apologetic bullshit. Shift the burden.
>>>
>>
>> That is what *you're* doing, you mental midget.
>>
>> PLONK
>>
>
>He's going to have to plonk a whole lotta people to hide from logic. :)
Or he could just stop spewing int a.a.
Yap
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
> > smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>
> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
> Your position is irrational.
>
> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
> evidence.
>
> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
> doing so. But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
> is precisely what makes it a religion. You can play semantic games
> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
> they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
> :)
>
> idd
No.
The "scientific objective" of a non-existence of any kind of god is
the absence of his appearance or help needed in mankind disasters.
This is a matter of fact in front of every single human on earth.
Is this enough?
Yap
> On 2010-08-22, idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
> > Your position is irrational.
>
> > Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
> > Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
> > evidence.
>
> > So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
> > prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
> > Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion. People claiming
> > to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
> > belief system. Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
> > doing so. But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
> > is precisely what makes it a religion. You can play semantic games
> > and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
> > obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
> > they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
> >:)
>
>
> no_proof != does_not_exist
> no_proof == unknown
>
> So people who claim to know either way are going on faith, and cannot
> reasonably claim to be "scientific".
You have to define a god first, otherwise there is no possibility to
conduct a scientific investigation or test.
Go on....
>
> HTH!
>
> --
> idd
Yap
> On 2010-08-22, Christopher A Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:15:01 -0700, DanielSan
> ><daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >>On 8/22/2010 11:00 AM, idd wrote:
> >>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
> >>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>
>
> >>religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
> >>ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
>
> > It never occurred to me that people could still believe in gods until
> > after I had learned to think critically for myself. My first exposure
> > to them was via the Greek myths.
>
> > Never having been raised in a religion it has never occurred to me to
> > think of them the way theists do.
>
> >>> Your position is irrational.
>
> >>Not really.
>
> >>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
> >>> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
> >>> evidence.
>
>
> > It is up to these loonies to do several things before talking as if it
> > were real. They are simply unimportant. So their first step is to make
> > us think they are relevant to us.
>
> >>> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
> >>> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
>
> >>is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
> >>believe in leprechauns.
>
> > I have no idea why they don't get this obvious point.
>
> >>> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
>
>
> > Those that do are fucking morons.
>
> > So which not-church do I not-go to, to not-pray to a not-god that I
> > not-worship, to not-listen to a not-sermon from a not-pulpit to
> > not-reinforce my not-belief?
>
> >>I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
>
> >>> People claiming
> >>> to know for certain there is no God are subscribing to a faith-based
> >>> belief system.
>
> >>is not a faith-based system.
>
> > They're too stupid to understand it is no different to us.
>
> >>> Only the open-minded (agnostic) can lay claim to not
> >>> doing so.
>
>
> >>I'm an agnostic atheist.
>
> >>I don't know if there are deities or not because no evidence has ever
> >>been provided. I DO know, however, that the gods that humans believe in
> >>don't exist because there is no evidence for these specific entities.
>
> > Never having gods implanted in my worldview as anything other than
> > characters in mythology, I don't have anything to be agnostic about.
>
> >>> But atheism being essentially belief that there is no God
> >>> is precisely what makes it a religion.
>
>
> >>Yeah, no. Belief in gravity isn't a religion. Belief in science isn't
> >>a religion. Belief that this post will go onto the newsgroup when I hit
> >>send is not a religion.
>
> > The trouble is that in this morons "mind" everything is a belief.
>
> >>If you say it is, then "religion" is a meaningless concept.
>
> >>> You can play semantic games
>
>
> >>> and claim otherwise all you like, but at the end of the day it's quite
> >>> obvious that someone who calls belief in God "a pack of lies" has decided
> >>> they "know" there is no God. Your faith is showing...
>
>
> >>Nope. Don't need faith to not believe in a god.
>
> > Just like all the other religious loonies, he can't understand why it
> > isn't as "real" as it is to him.
>
> > So he invents all sorts of rationalisations, most of which are just
> > plain nasty.
>
> I am not a "he", and apparently you do not even have the mental capacity
> to follow a discussion.
Oh, a she?
Even worse for a female, you may be even more irrational than a male.
>
> But you're calling *me* a moron?
Why not, when you twisted your argument in our face to try to appear
as correct?
>
> Hilarious...
You are.
>
> Shouldn't you be getting back to your homework for those remedial summer
> school classes, so you can advance to the tenth grade?
Chris Lee can probably be your valuable professor, if you wish to
learn something.
>
> --
> idd
Yap
> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8/22/2010 12:21 PM, idd wrote:
> >> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>> On 8/22/2010 11:00 AM, idd wrote:
> >>>> On 2010-08-22, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You can believe in facts or you can believe in fiction. We have to
> >>>>> smack them around with the fact that they believe in a pack of lies.
>
> >>>> Where's the "scientific objectivity" in this?
>
> >>> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
> >>> religion and over the billions of people researching it, not one has
> >>> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for a deity.
>
> >> My scientific objectivity comes from the fact that, in the history of
> >> ever come up with a single solitary particle of evidence for the
> >> non-existence of a deity.
>
> > Don't need to. You don't need to prove a negative.
>
> Really?
> Then I believe that you don't exist.
> No proof necessary, right? You never call or come by, that's good enough
> for me! :D
>
> Gosh, you're disappointing. I had really hoped you could think more critically.
>
>
>
> >>>> Yes, we cannot prove the existence of God in terms of physical evidence.
> >>>> Also, you cannot prove the non-existence of God in terms of physical
> >>>> evidence.
>
> >>> Don't need to. It's not my job to prove a negative.
>
> >> without proof?
>
> > Sorry, but what? "Believe in the nonexistence of God"? How does that work?
>
> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>
>
> That trick doesn't work, haven't you noticed? I can't tell if it's dishonesty
> or stupidity on your part, no offense.
>
> The distinction here is that you insist that belief in God is "a pack of lies".
> You're not just casually saying, "Oh, you could be right but I'm just not
> feeling that whole God thing". No. What you're saying is, "people who believe in
> in God are MORONS because they believe in a pack of lies". Big difference.
>
> *Prove* there is no God or admit you are indulging in a faith-based belief
> system.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You call people who believe in God "stupid", yet you
> >> are using the exact same kind of thinking, just with the opposite bias.
>
> >>>> So you don't get to call belief in God "a pack of lies" until you can
> >>>> prove it -- unless of course, you're (gasp!) indulging in *faith*.
>
> >>> Nope. I can say it's a pack of lies because they are adamant that there
> >>> is evidence even though there isn't. It doesn't take faith to not
> >>> believe in leprechauns.
>
> >> not exist. An objective person will have to admit that while they may
> >> consider it supremely unlikely, they simply do not know for certain.
>
> > Actually, no. I can categorically state that I do not own a single
> > basketball.
>
> Are you hallucinating?
>
>
>
> >>>> Which is why many theists consider atheism a religion.
>
> >>> And they do it wrongly.
>
>
> > Not at all. You didn't prove anything.
>
> Yes, and you have also. You have proven that you do not understand
> basic principles of critical thinking and have no right to call others
> "morons".
>
>
>
> >>> I don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
>
>
> > Handwaving noted. Religion is an active belief system. Atheism is not.
>
> Yours is. Anyone who claims to know that belief in God is "a pack of lies"
> is indulging in faith. I've actually known people who admit they don't
> know whether or not ±God exists, they're called agnostics and they have
> no religious belief. Anyone claiming to "know" there is no God, however,
> is definitely indulging in a faith-based belief system.
> Pretending otherwise just makes you look really, really stupid.
> A±nyway, at this point ±I can see you have no interest/ability to be serious
> or honest, so let's cut to the chase 'cause I'm out of time here.
>
>
>
> >> That's true, but it takes faith to call my religion "a pack of lies".
> >> You can get squirmy with semantic games but it doesn't fool me.
>
> > Nope. Doesn't take faith to say that either, because it's based on
> > known falsehoods.
>
> "Known falsehoods"?
> Citations, please...
> Feel free to be very specific.
> Which known falsehoods, when, where, and by whom this proof was presented,
> etc. Gotta go, I'll try to check back in a few hours.
>
> --
> idd
You do not possess the capacity to even understand that god "was" just
a human invention?
Yap
> On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Aug 2010 23:49:35 GMT, idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>> On 8/22/2010 12:58 PM, idd wrote:
>
> >>>> You feel free to call belief in God "a pack of lies", so clearly you believe
> >>>> strongly in the nonexistence of God. Not a hard concept...
>
> >>> Sorry, but how do I "believe strongly in the nonexistence of God"?
>
> >>Oh, I'm so sorry but that is the wrong answer and now you are disqualified!
>
> > You made the assertion and were asked to support it. You failed to
> > support it but claim that the person who asked you to support your
> > assertion was disqualified. What remarkably bad logic you have.
>
> Not sure whether it's your reading comprehension or what, but you clearly
> did NOT understand this thread.
>
> For the last time:
> If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
> is on you. Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
> In fact not once during that debate did I argue that there is a God.
> I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
> since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
history from the first biological cell was born on earth, there was
never anything called a god in existence.
And this is a matter of fact.
>
> But I guess you guys aren't smart enough to get that.
>
> > We'll be happy to see you go. You've offered nothing useful here and you
> > appear to need to take a remedial class in logic.
>
> Yeah okay whatever, genius. I'm not going anywhere, it's you who keep
> posting to alt.religion.vaishnava. I do not read alt.atheism. Stop
> x-posting and you'll see me no more, how simple is that? Why, it's as
> simple as understanding that lack of proof for existence of God does
> not equal proof of the non-existence of God. Oh, but you have trouble
> with that one, don't you....
So, in this respect, lack of proof = nonexistence.....is that simple
enough for your small brain?
>
> --
> idd
idd
>
> Please tell us why it is unreasonable to say _tentatively_ that X does
> not exist when absolutely no evidence for X exists.
>
Now why would I want to do that?
That was the whole point that a whole slew of you seem to insist on
ignoring -- DanielSan claimed to *know* that there is no God, and
went on to call people who believe otherwise "morons" and "idiots".
That is NOT a "tentative" statement, that's an *absolute* statement.
[sigh]
I am done with this thread, it's tedious to keep re-explaining to
people who can't follow simple logic. Re-read the thread, it's all
there.
--
idd
Yap
> On 23 Aug 2010 00:19:32 GMT, idd <i...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >For the last time:
> >If you claim to *know* "there is no God", then the burden of proof
> >is on you. Any third grader can understand this, so put up or shut up.
> >In fact not once during that debate did I argue that there is a God.
> >I merely pointed out that claiming there is no God is a matter of faith,
> >since you can't possibly *know* such a thing.
>
> The usual Apologetic bullshit. Shift the burden.
>
> There is no god(s). Just like there is no Superman or Easter Bunny.
> All three are logically equal. You just equate a god as being 'more'
> important than the Easter Bunny. But there is just as much evident to
> support the Easter Bunny as your god. Isn't that pathetic!
>
> I work in a skilled nursing facility and I can tell you from
> personal experience, from the mind numbing suffering I've seen, that
> there is no god.
The vast suffering of the pain, the terminal, the poverty, the natural
disasters, etc all are sufficient proof that there is never a thing
called god.
But the loons and this idd just fail to accept this fact.
idd
Great! Which human's imagination is He?
> So, in this respect, lack of proof = nonexistence.....is that simple
> enough for your small brain?
Lack of proof God does not equal proof of no God.
What an incredibly stupid thing to believe.
You'd best go back to school.
--
idd
Yap
When confronted with no answer, run away is always the best you can
do.
But being a lady, you can't run too far.
Yap
A troll have no words of himself, and always need to quote from
others, or need to cling onto sky pixie.
As predicted by me, you will not acknowledge this fact.
idd
> The vast suffering of the pain, the terminal, the poverty, the natural
> disasters, etc all are sufficient proof that there is never a thing
> called god.
That is completely irrational.
> But the loons and this idd just fail to accept this fact.
>
Clearly critical thought is not your forté.
--
idd
DanielSan
> On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> Please tell us why it is unreasonable to say _tentatively_ that X does
>> not exist when absolutely no evidence for X exists.
>>
>
> Now why would I want to do that?
> That was the whole point that a whole slew of you seem to insist on
> ignoring -- DanielSan claimed to *know* that there is no God, and
> went on to call people who believe otherwise "morons" and "idiots".
> That is NOT a "tentative" statement, that's an *absolute* statement.
Because "God" is a contradiction. It cannot possibly exist as it's
currently defined.
"There is no God" is not a statement of faith, nor is it a claim.
It is a denial and denial of something existing needs no evidence.
huge
> On 2010-08-23, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> Please tell us why it is unreasonable to say _tentatively_ that X does
>> not exist when absolutely no evidence for X exists.
>>
>
> Now why would I want to do that?
> That was the whole point that a whole slew of you seem to insist on
> ignoring -- DanielSan claimed to *know* that there is no God, and
> went on to call people who believe otherwise "morons" and "idiots".
> That is NOT a "tentative" statement, that's an *absolute* statement.
>
Where there is absence of verifiable evidence over a very long time
(*millennia* in this case) where there *should* be at least a tiny bit
of verifiable evidence and where thoroughgoing checks have been made --
that is evidence of absence.
Let's say someone came to you
and told you that there was an elephant in your back yard. So you grin
at this and send one of the kids into the back yard to check. No
elephant. So then you and your wife go to check. No elephant.
But that's not the end of it. You keep checking for fifty years.
You rig cameras to take film of the back yard when you are away. No
elephant. You check for footprints but the grass is undisturbed. You
go to neighbors to check if any vans or elephants have been seen. No
elephant. No evidence of an elephant.
Now *that* is some fairly strong evidence of absence.
____________
Theists are the Gomers who came to tell us that there was an elephant
int the back yard.
> [sigh]
>
> I am done with this thread, it's tedious to keep re-explaining to
> people who can't follow simple logic. Re-read the thread, it's all
> there.
>
--
Not on my time you don't.
Yap
> On 2010-08-23, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A god is simply a human imagination.
>
> Great! Which human's imagination is He?
The various magicians in Harry Potter are real in your assessment?
>
> > So, in this respect, lack of proof = nonexistence.....is that simple
> > enough for your small brain?
>
> Lack of proof God does not equal proof of no God.
> What an incredibly stupid thing to believe.
> You'd best go back to school.
record it in a book. I then begin to assign stories and qualities to
it......surely you must be capable to prove it for me?
Take this challenge, don't run away.
>
> --
> idd
Inertial
news:b54addf1-a96e-4bc9...@g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>I'm not saying that I am beyond sex-life, because, after all, it is a
>very deeply rooted attachment. But ever so gradually by the process of
>serving Krishna, I am experiencing a pleasure which is infinitely
>higher than what you can get through bodily gratification. And, BTW,
>THAT is the proof of the superiority of Krishna Conciousness - the
>highes pleasure you experience by engaging in it.
So your proof of your god is that you lose sexual drive as you get older.
BAHAHAHAHA.
idd
So, English is not your first language I take it?
You seem to be unable to detect humor at your expense...
--
idd
Free Lunch
>On 2010-08-23, Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A god is simply a human imagination.
>
>Great! Which human's imagination is He?
>
>> So, in this respect, lack of proof = nonexistence.....is that simple
>> enough for your small brain?
>
>Lack of proof God does not equal proof of no God.
Possibly true. It depends on if you are talking about a specific deity
that is reasonably well defined within the doctrine of the religion or a
vaguely defined or undefined god that can be squeezed and moved about as
needed. The God described in the Bible does not exist. That is quite
clear. The gods that affected nature do not exist. Might some other god
that you want to talk about exist? I cannot possibly say until you
define that god's characteristics and we can see if that god fits with
reality.
Jahnu
> What's this "other belief"?
You tell me.
Krishna says:
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire
from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized
souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.
(Bg. 4.34)
DanielSan
> On Aug 23, 7:54 am, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> What's this "other belief"?
>
> You tell me.
No. You tell me.
Jahnu
> A troll have no words of himself, and always need to quote from
> others, or need to cling onto sky pixie.
That's not the definition of a troll, bozo. According to that
definition you are a troll, constantly yakking (pun intended) the
usual atheist piss and snot you hear from others.
> As predicted by me, you will not acknowledge this fact.
Sorry, what facts?
Here are some facts for you - Krishna says:
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. (Bg. 18.66)
Jahnu
> You do not possess the capacity to even understand that god "was" just
> a human invention?
Why would anyone think that? There is nothing in observable reality to
indicate it is so. No thinking persons think that God is a mere
invention by humans. Only idiots think like that.
Here is the proof - Krishna says:
Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic
views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their
fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.
(Bg. 9.12)
DanielSan
> On Aug 23, 9:22 am, Yap<hhyaps...@gmail.com> yakked:
>
>> You do not possess the capacity to even understand that god "was" just
>> a human invention?
>
> Why would anyone think that? There is nothing in observable reality to
> indicate it is so. No thinking persons think that God is a mere
> invention by humans. Only idiots think like that.
Okay, what was "Ra"?
Yap
> On Aug 23, 9:22 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> yakked:
>
> > You do not possess the capacity to even understand that god "was" just
> > a human invention?
>
> Why would anyone think that? There is nothing in observable reality to
> indicate it is so. No thinking persons think that God is a mere
> invention by humans. Only idiots think like that.
Or your god being so brutally unkind to human that it stay aside
satisfied that the flood could kill?
You refute with no substance whatsoever!!!!! Mere words......
Yap
> On Aug 23, 9:54 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A troll have no words of himself, and always need to quote from
> > others, or need to cling onto sky pixie.
>
> That's not the definition of a troll, bozo. According to that
> definition you are a troll, constantly yakking (pun intended) the
> usual atheist piss and snot you hear from others.
>
> > As predicted by me, you will not acknowledge this fact.
>
> Sorry, what facts?
Yap
>
> --
> idd
Jahnu
> Okay, what was "Ra"?
The sun-god.
Krishna says:
Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith
actually worship only Me, O son of Kunté, but they do so in a wrong
way. (Bg. 9.23)
Jahnu
> Are you saying the current flood in Pakistan is caused by your god?
They are caused by nature. The way nature behaves is caused by the
collective activities of human society.
> Or your god being so brutally unkind to human that it stay aside
> satisfied that the flood could kill?
There has been more natural catastrophes the last 10 years than in the
previous 100 years combined. Those are the bad karmic reactions that
come from the combined sinful activities of human society. Or what?
Are you actually so brain-dead that you think you can act and behave
in any old way, like slaughtering billions of cows and other living
entities in high-tech death factories, and there won't be any
consequences? Think again, bozo.
Krishna says:
This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My
direction, O son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings.
Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and
again. (Bg. 9.10)
DanielSan
> On Aug 23, 11:19 am, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> Okay, what was "Ra"?
>
> The sun-god.
Does Ra exist?
Jahnu
> No, to me a troll is something the same as trash.
That's not the definition of a troll on usenet, bozo. Besides,
according to that definition you are a troll.
> So, my prediction is 1,000,000 times more true than your sky pixie.
Whose prediction will come true, you'll realize soon enough. Until
then you'll have to be satisfied with living in ignorance.
Here is a prediction for you - Krishna says:
If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of
conditioned life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such
consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be
lost. (Bg. 18.58)
Yap
> On Aug 23, 11:37 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying the current flood in Pakistan is caused by your god?
>
> They are caused by nature. The way nature behaves is caused by the
> collective activities of human society.
>
> > Or your god being so brutally unkind to human that it stay aside
> > satisfied that the flood could kill?
>
> There has been more natural catastrophes the last 10 years than in the
> previous 100 years combined. Those are the bad karmic reactions that
> come from the combined sinful activities of human society. Or what?
> Are you actually so brain-dead that you think you can act and behave
> in any old way, like slaughtering billions of cows and other living
> entities in high-tech death factories, and there won't be any
> consequences? Think again, bozo.
If a god stand idly by to watch human suffer from disasters, what is
the value of your god or what is the point of your worship?
>
> Krishna says:
There is no krishna to say anything.