A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
fasgnadh
A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
"specious \ˈspē-shəs\
1: showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
sophistic <specious reasoning>
"It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
Century.
As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
“Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
"In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative
ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
"atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs),
"atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos.
The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and
Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to
the other.[1]
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in
about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one
who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[2] predates atheism in
English, being first attested in about 1571.[3] Atheist as a label of
practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[4]
Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic
... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of
calling himself an atheist."[5] Atheism was first used to describe a
self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting
disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[6] In the 20th century,
globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to
disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to
describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[7] Most recently, there
has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as
the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own
right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though
its mainstream usage has been limited.[8]
Footnotes
[1] Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922
edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN
0-89005-201-8. "Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots
and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek;
their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said
atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos
was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this
use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do
we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed."
[2} "atheist". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
2nd ed. 1989.
[3] Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571). The Psalmes of David
and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries. pp. Ep. Ded. 3. "The
Atheistes which say..there is no God." Translated from French.
[4] Hanmer, Meredith (1577). The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of
the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates,
and Evagrius. London. pp. 63. OCLC 55193813. "The opinion which they
conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men."
[5] Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage.
ISBN 0-09-927367-5.
[6] In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society,
atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more
generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely drawn
in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses
of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in
polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term adevism
was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in
plural deities. Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
[7] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.
[8] Cline, Austin (2006). "What Is the Definition of Atheism?".
about.com.http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/
definition.htm. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
--
"Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the
definition of the term ...
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist
in the sense of denying the existence of a God.
I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older),
but not always, -- that an agnostic would be the most correct
description of my state of mind."
- Charles Darwin, 1879
[20 years AFTER publication of The Origin of Species!!! ]
paris...@gmail.com
>
> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
> 1: showy
> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>
> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
> ignorant of the origins of their ideology,
What part of "atheism is not an ideology" do you not understand? Try
understanding what atheism is (and is not) if you're gonna be ranting
and raving about it.
Yap
You have been crusading against Atheism for a long time. However, you
still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology, but merely
a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
You are barking on a wrong tree....stop barking as your energy is
wasting your time.
You see, the real problem with you and your loons is that you all
never wish to utilize your time for the good of a society, but spend
it in the defense of the stupid imagination of the human mind.
Like all the vast money collected by the churches, not for the poor
and needy, but for the cause of defending the useless religion through
more churches, refurnishing the "house of god", lavish life style of
preaches/pastors, purchase of villa, investments for church
authorities, missionary works to spread falsehood, etc.
If those latter efforts were for the poor and poverty, then we might
not see African nation in their current dire state of desperation.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
>> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
>> 1: showy
>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>
Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid by the historical facts,
clear evidence and Scholarly (rational) argument, that your only
response is to SNIP it ALL, and RUN AWAY like fearful infants,
screeching hysterically that ONLY YOUR VIEW matters! B^D
We took a photo of you trying to avoid the issues:
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
>>
>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
> What part of "atheism is not an ideology" do you not understand?
The part where real atheists, not preppie infants like yourself,
tell us in well supported peer-reviewed documents, that it IS;
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
What should you now do in the face of all that serious scholastic
work you tried to avoid by snipping ALL of it?
> Try understanding what atheism is (and is not)
This might help you, it's called HISTORICAL REALITY, and contrary
to Athei-Sith BELIEFS, you cannot run away from it by pushing your
fat head further up your even fatter arse! B^]
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...
all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" - Stalin
- E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
But it was not just the Atheism of the leadership,
but of the entire State apparatus;
The Atheist leadership's policies were implemented under
the red Terror, via gulags and executions, the use of
every arm of the state for anti-religious propaganda
and the forced indoctrination of CHILDREN! B^[
“We do not fight against believers and not even clergymen.
WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him.”
-Vechernaia Moskva, a Soviet newspaper
“Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth,
and God from Heaven!” (early Soviet slogan)
"the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
- Daniel Peris,
"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
"Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden"
"Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
In 1922, the Solovki Camp of Special Purpose, the first Russian
concentration camp was established in the Solovki Islands in the White Sea"
John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State
(Boston: Little Brown, 1953)
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
#
# "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
# by a government, typically by active suppression of
# religious freedom and practice."
# - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
# Characteristics and Consequences,
# David Kowalewski,
# Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,
#
#
# "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhist religion:
# monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
# Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
# other religious sentiments were often killed.
# ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
# and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
# and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
# starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
# prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
# instead of the family.
#
# About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
# were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot’s regime."
# - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
#
# The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
#
# "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
# regarded by the regime as social parasites,
# were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
# Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
# destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
# Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
# rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
# or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
# were often killed.
#
# The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
# persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
# Phnom Penh was completely razed.
#
# The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
# regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
# Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
# - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm
#
# "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
# because of their religion."
#
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg
#
#
# "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
# - Daniel Peris,
# "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
# Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
#
#
# "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist
# countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China,
# Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea,
# Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also
# promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.
# - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland.
# Wolak, Arthur J. p 104
#
# In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an
# intrinsic part of communist ideology.
------------------------
# "Religious persecution in the Soviet Union"
#
# US Department of State Bulletin, Nov, 1986 by Edward J. Derwinski
#
#
# " The Soviet regime regards religion as a hostile ideology
# and is openly committed to the creation of an atheist society.
# Its attitude was summed up by a Byelorussian party official
# who wrote a 1984 article in Kommunist Belorussii that "religion
# in our country is the only legal refuge alien to socialism
# in ideology and morals." How Soviet authorities understand
# freedom of conscience is revealed in Soviet constitutional
# provisions, legislation, administrative regulations,
# and extralegal pressures applied against believers."
#
#
# Soviet Law and Religion
#
# Article 52 of the U.S.S.R. Constitution .. in effect makes
# illegal the conduct of "religious propaganda"; i.e.,
# to engage in public discussion or refute atheist propaganda.
#
And what should you STOP doing, you stupid little Athei-Sith liar?
> be ranting and raving about it.
Very well.. run along now and get some salve for that bruised arse of
yours.. in future don't try and stuff your head up it, especially
while I AM KICKING IT!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA!
paris...@gmail.com
>
> #
> # "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
> # regarded by the regime as social parasites,
> # were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
> # Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
> # destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
> # Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
> # rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
> # or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
> # were often killed.
> #
> # The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
> # persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
> # Phnom Penh was completely razed.
> #
>
> read more »
Why are you so obsessed with Stalin and Lenin? Maybe they were
atheists, but that doesn't mean atheism was responsible for their
actions. There is no atheist doctrine or teaching they could follow
that would lead to their actions, because no such doctrines exist!
Atheism is the LACK of religious belief, it is not a belief system in
itself. Get that through your head before you resume your never-
ending crusade against intellectual honesty. As Yap said, you're
barking up the wrong tree.
Virgil
<b761af5e-a9fb-4d9c...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 7:00 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
> >
> > "specious \?sp®€-sh?s\
> > Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý1: showy
> > Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> > Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
> > Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý sophistic <specious reasoning>
Sounds remarkably like one of the overzealous religions, and totally
unlike the careful consideration of fact and logic demonstrated by
evolution.
raven1
wrote:
>parish.matt is so terrified of FACTS and LOGIC, he snips and runs:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>
>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>
>>> "specious \?sp?-sh?s\
>>> 1: showy
>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>
>><snip rest of idiotic drivel>
>
>Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid by the historical facts,
>clear evidence and Scholarly (rational) argument, that your only
>response is to SNIP it ALL, and RUN AWAY like fearful infants,
>screeching hysterically that ONLY YOUR VIEW matters! B^D
>
>We took a photo of you trying to avoid the issues:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
>
>>>
>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>> Century.
>>>
>>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>>
>>> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
>>>
>>> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (?????, from the privative
>>> ?- + ???? "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
>>> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
>>> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
>>> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ?????? (aseb?s) or "impious".
>>> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
>>> "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ??????? (atheot?s),
>>> atheos and atheot?s; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
Your citations above don't support your claim.
> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
Neither does that. Ayn Rand, as fierce an anti-Communist who ever
lived, insisted that atheism was an inseparable part of
Libertarianism.
>
>What should you now do in the face of all that serious scholastic
>work you tried to avoid by snipping ALL of it?
>
> > Try understanding what atheism is (and is not)
What a group of atheists political ideologues did, for political
reasons, is no more representative of atheists as a group than the
Bush Administration is of Christians as a group, or the Government of
Iran, or al Qaeda, are of Muslims as a group.
I leave your irrelevant citations below so you won't have cause to
accuse me of snipping them, but son, you seriously need to take some
basic courses in logic, because you're really making an idiot of
yourself.
Fran
<snip another redux of the Wicks troll's rant>
>
> Why are you so obsessed with Stalin and Lenin? Maybe they were
> atheists, but that doesn't mean atheism was responsible for their
> actions. There is no atheist doctrine or teaching they could follow
> that would lead to their actions, because no such doctrines exist!
> Atheism is the LACK of religious belief, it is not a belief system in
> itself. Get that through your head before you resume your never-
> ending crusade against intellectual honesty. As Yap said, you're
> barking up the wrong tree.
You need to stop feeding the Wicks troll. He has no interest at all in
what he is saying and is thus indifferent to intellectual objection.
He persistently lies and misrepresents others in ways that are as
odious as they are obvious. He knows that this will provoke further
responses at which he can then bluster abusively and self-affirm.
Taking his content at its prima facie value cannot shed new light on
any matter of importance.
If you ignore the troll and save your energy for those who take what
they post as the starting point for discussion, the Wicks troll will
continue to yammer away impressing nobody whose opinion would be worth
winning and seriously annoying most, whatever their views on the
status of god. You on the other hand, will stand a better chance of
enjoying your sojourns here and certainly waste less time.
As always though, YMMV ...
Fran
Mark K Bilbo
>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
>> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
>> 1: showy
>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure 3: having
>> a false look of truth or genuineness :
>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>
>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology,
> <snip rest of idiotic drivel>
> What part of "atheism is not an ideology" do you not understand?
The part with words...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always
something to be thankful for; as for me,
I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
- H. L. Mencken
dolf
get fucked!
Which word is biblical?
The Chinese DAOIST metaphysical philosophical / theological view of the
Tetragrammation view of Number being published in 2 BCE and during the
Han dynasty.
var TETRAGRAM = {
1:[0, 27, 54],
2:[0, 9, 18],
3:[0, 3, 6],
4:[1, 2, 3]
} // Chinese Daoist understanding of number as Yang, Yin, Zhun
I have a replica circular jewelry box which dates from about 206 BCE
(preceding the Han Dynasty of 206 BCE-220 CE) which shows a dragon
(Emperor/Male) and phoenix (Consort/Female) and which conforms to the
planetary prohibitions (as a heritage to other peoples) given at Sinai
[Deuteronomy 4] and referenced in Paul's theology of [Romans 1].
var _81 = {$1: {0:1, /* 'Nature contains Nature' */ 1:4 /* 'Nature
amended in its Nature' */},
$2: {0:2, /* 'Nature rejoices in its Nature' */ 1:5 /* 'Act of
Nature' */},
$4: {0:3, /* 'Nature surmounts Nature' */ 1:6 /* 'Form of Nature' */},
$8: {0:4, /* 'Nature amended in its Nature' */ 1:7 /* 'Engendering
Nature' */},
$16: {0:5, /* 'Act of Nature' */ 1:8 /* 'Transforming Nature' */},
$32: {0:6, /* 'Form of Nature' */ 1:9 /* 'Autonomous Nature' */},
$64: {0:7, /* 'Engendering Nature' */ 1:10 /* 'Totality of Nature' */}
}
var TETRAGRAM = {
1:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$16, 1:_81.$8, 2:_81.$2, 3:_81.$1} /* 27 */,
2:{0:_81.$32, 1:_81.$16, 2:_81.$4, 3:_81.$2}} /* 54 */,
2:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$8, 1:_81.$1} /* 9 */, 2:{0:_81.$16, 1:_81.$2} /*
18 */},
3:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$2,1:_81.$1} /* 3 */, 2:{0:_81.$4, 1:_81.$2} /* 6 */},
4:{0:{0:_81.$1} /* 1 */, 1:{0:_81.$2} /* 2 */, 2:{0:_81.$4} /* 3 */},
5:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$64, 1:_81.$16, 2:_81.$1} /* 81 */, 2:{0:_81.$64,
1:_81.$32, 2:_81.$16, 3:_81.$1} /* #113 + #256 = #369 */}
}
(#113)
--- Intensely glowing, sparkling; gem.
--- Emptiness.
--- Married.
--- To cut into, engrave, delineate; statute, law, custom.
--- They rutted {Profanity is not the fucking subject}
--- A treading down, subduing.
--- n. "Comfort of Yah".
--- A refuge, shelter (figuratively a reference to God).
--- n. "A Band".
--- To draw back; to be driven back, removed.
--- Drunkards.
--- To check or control, to administer affairs.
--- Ruler or governor; nobleman.
--- Remission or forgiveness.
--- A ring, earring.
--- To be pressed or bowed down, to be sad.
"Gay people aren't very popular among those demanding more freedom of
religion in a federal inquiry currently underway. The Human Rights
Commission's freedom of religion and belief inquiry extended the
timeframe for new submissions until the end of this month, but so far
conservative Christians have made more contributions than every other
religion or perspective combined." [The Sydney Star Observer 12 February
2009, p 7]
That I will not, with respects to Intellectual Property held by me as
substantiation of religious belief by a semiotic cosmological absolute
as analogy to the anthropic cosmological principle, prostitute this
knowledge by making a submission to this enquiry.
22/7 as 3W1D ... {Formula of Progression of individual phenomena}
the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of Universal
Law}, which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of
the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of
sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days
the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of
Humanity}, which contains the command to behave in accordance with the
law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or
294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20
March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and
the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of Autonomy},
which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as right in the
case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D)
= Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2] has #369 with Septet #41
centric on 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
This is because of the dishonesty as indulgence which accompanied the
last Senate Committee review of proposed amendments to marriage
legislation in August 2004 to which I did make a submission--this
process was subverted by Prime Minister John Howard due to delusional
ideological perspectives held by him.
That I have found this same dishonest and deficient conduct to be the
character of both the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
(Victoria) the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales--I'm still
waiting for their resolution of my complaint (did they send it to some
perverse suburban address to make a point about their superiority in
this country?) in relation to abuses as Internet termination perpetuated
before the last Federal Election by candidates with Christian views--at
a time when John Howard erroneously and falsely claimed there was
freedom of speech. I have since removed my name from the electoral role
and any further participation within the democratic process.
And I have every intention of establishing fact in a court of law,
rather than condescending any further to the maniacal instruments of
cruelty deployed by the Human Rights Commission."
paris...@gmail.com
Can you tell me how to plonk him? I'm new here and don't know how...
Immortalist
>
> <snip another redux of the Wicks troll's rant>
>
>
>
> > Why are you so obsessed with Stalin and Lenin? Maybe they were
> > atheists, but that doesn't mean atheism was responsible for their
> > actions. There is no atheist doctrine or teaching they could follow
> > that would lead to their actions, because no such doctrines exist!
> > Atheism is the LACK of religious belief, it is not a belief system in
> > itself. Get that through your head before you resume your never-
> > ending crusade against intellectual honesty. As Yap said, you're
> > barking up the wrong tree.
>
> You need to stop feeding the Wicks troll. He has no interest at all in
> what he is saying and is thus indifferent to intellectual objection.
> He persistently lies and misrepresents others in ways that are as
> odious as they are obvious. He knows that this will provoke further
> responses at which he can then bluster abusively and self-affirm.
> Taking his content at its prima facie value cannot shed new light on
> any matter of importance.
>
> If you ignore the troll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxv5XBpn68
> ...and save your energy for those who take what
Fran
If you are using the google interface there is no capacity to "plonk"
anyone. Just note him and move on.
If you are using a dedicated newsreader there are functions to cease
gathering threads or posts from nominated persons.
I use google, but as soon as I see "fasgnadh" or something in his
native format I simply move on.
Fran
turtoni
> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
That is an ideology.
Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
"supernatural".
It's merely intelligent to be at the very least; agnostic.
But sure, any information aka ramblings of the primates must in
essence be limited.
Stating that you know that there is no "supernatural" is hubris aka a
kind of magic.. THE IRONY.
fasgnadh
8^D :
Your claim is refuted by the evidence.
The Atheist ideology was discredited in the 20th century by the
Atheist regimes, every one of which was a violent, barbaric, cruel
an oppressive tyranny.
The facts are well documented and the responsibility id openly
admitted by the responsible Atheists.
>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> Neither does that. Ayn Rand, as fierce an anti-Communist who ever
> lived, insisted that atheism was an inseparable part of
> Libertarianism.
Ayn Who? She played no role in the Union of Savage Slaughter and
Repression, the Great Leap backward or the Cultural Devolution!
What does an irrelevent counter claim, with not a shred of supporting
evidence to back it up, by a discredited Friedmanite nutjob, have to do
with the crimes against humanity committed by the Atheist regimes of the
20th century???
Run along lightweight, this is a serious thread for those capable of
critical historical debate!
>
>> What should you now do in the face of all that serious scholastic
>> work you tried to avoid by snipping ALL of it?
>>
>>> Try understanding what atheism is (and is not)
>
> What a group of atheists political ideologues did,
becomes part of the DEFINING PRAXIS of the MOST INFLUENTIAL period
in the history of Atheism, short, brutal and a TOTAL FAILURE!
Despite FORCED Atheist indoctrination, of adults in 're-education'
camps and children in state schools, people despised the Atheist regimes
and could not wait for their collapse, upon which millions embraced
religions they would previously have been tortured, persecuted and
killed for participating in!
> for political reasons, is no more representative
> of atheists as a group than the Bush Administration
> is of Christians as a group,
Totally irrelevant busslshit, the USA under Bush was never a Theocracy,
the USSR under Lenin was OFFICIALLY, EXPLICITLY, and in PRACTICE, an
ATHEIST regime. Party members, the only ones allowed to govern, HAD TO
BE ATHEISTS!
I leave your other irrelevant opinions, all unsupported by any
factual evidence, below to embarrass you with your lack of logical
argument and complete absence of proof for your blather;
> or the Government of
> Iran, or al Qaeda, are of Muslims as a group.
>
> I leave your irrelevant citations below so you won't have cause to
> accuse me of snipping them, but son, you seriously need to take some
> basic courses in logic, because you're really making an idiot of
> yourself.
>
>> This might help you, it's called HISTORICAL REALITY, and contrary
>> to Athei-Sith BELIEFS, you cannot run away from it by pushing your
>> fat head further up your even fatter arse! B^]
>>
The impartial reader will not that apart from expressing a few
irrelevant opinions, ravin Raven cannot refute rebut or even dispute a
SINGLE Historical fact!!!
The Atheists are routed and can only retreat in shame that I know more
about their history than they are even game to admit!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA
Syd M.
> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>
> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
> 1: showy
> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>
> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
> ignorant of the origins of their ideology,
Perhaps for the simple matter there it doesn't exist, asshole.
No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it's still a lie.
PDW
Syd M.
> parish.matt is so terrified of FACTS and LOGIC, he snips and runs:
>
PDW
Syd M.
> On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
> > but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
>
> That is an ideology.
>
No.
<Delusion snipped>
PDW
fasgnadh
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
>> #
>> # "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
>> # regarded by the regime as social parasites,
>> # were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
>> # Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
>> # destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
>> # Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
>> # rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
>> # or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
>> # were often killed.
>> #
>> # The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
>> # persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
>> # Phnom Penh was completely razed.
>> #
>> # The Khmer Rouge forced ...
>>
>> read more »
>
> Why are you so obsessed with Stalin and Lenin?
I'm not, i will just keep posting the Historical truth about
Atheism till you are bleeding from the anus from shoving
your head so far up it to AVOID THE TRUTH! B^]
I find that the significant Atheist tyrants of the 20th century
are like Holy Water splashed on Movie Vampires to the Athei-sith.. it
makes them scream hysterically;
> Maybe they were atheists,
Maybe?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAA
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
Maybe you are just another dumber than pigshit Athei-Sith
Holocaust Denier who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the
arse!
I have had EVERY Athei-Sith telling me every Pravda Propaganda
BULLSHIT denying that any of them were atheists for MONTHS!
> but that doesn't mean atheism was responsible for their
> actions.
Except that THEY say it DOES!!!! B^]
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
And then they PROVE it by carrying out TERROR, TORTURE, PERSECUTION
AND MURDER against the religious.. and moral maggots like you
keep snipping the HARD EVIDENCE of that and running away from the
facts;
> There is no atheist doctrine or teaching they could follow
> that would lead to their actions,
Like all atheist holocaust deniers, you keep claiming it
couldn't have happened.. BUT IT DID! And Atheists DID IT.
Suck it up, it's your history!
The violent acts performed by Christian and Muslims HERETICS,
which you atheists persistently use to demonise ALL religion,
are clearly in VIOLATION of clear prohibitions in the sacred texts.
THOU SHALT NOT KILL! is a commandment, so anyone who kills cannot claim
to be a genuine Christian.
But there is nothing in the moral Vacuum of Atheism that explicitly
restrains Atheists from doing anything;
> because no such doctrines exist!
.. and as we have seen in practice,that lack of restraint
led to the most brutal and hideous tyrannies;
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
> Atheism is the LACK of religious belief,
And it is a series of Bus Ads placed to prosletyse it's beliefs, and
an organisation to raise the money to do so, and a NG in which atheists
do what Lenin did a century ago.. spread their ideology using all the
tools of Pravda and Propaganda!
It is a belief but it is MORE than that! It is, in reality, the
organised expression of Atheist ideology IN REALITY, by atheists.
And that reality is one of torture, terror and mass murder, when
Atheism seized power, and lies, abuse, slander, false propaganda
and anti-theist agitprop in the modern era, when atheism is trying
to struggle back from being a despised coven of apologists for
the Atheist holocausts, and presents a philosophical Low Profile.
It's like Nazis asking to be acceptable saying.. Nazism just means
National Socialism! What is wrong with either of those!???
It's simple: Like the Nazis, YOUR ACTIONS SPEAK FAR LOUDER THAN MERE
WORDS, because as I have consistently shown, you are the masters of
lies, fraud and hypocrisy:
Subject: AQOTM fraud is a clear Breach of AQOTM RULES!!!! 8^o
Quotemeister *nemo*toad implicated! 8^o
Message-ID: <49847258$0$3253$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>
BwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
http://theatreinbrussels.com/ecc/images/stories/Productions/animalfarm-web.png
> it is not a belief system in itself.
Prove it. B^p
I have quoted the words thoughts and actions of thousands of atheists
involved in the REPRESSION BY FORCE of people of all faiths.. including
mass murder and crimes against humanity...
You fucking HYPOCRITES cannot go on about the CRUSADES, or THE
INQUISITION, or WITCH BURNING, in yourt relentless ANTI-THEIST
campaign and expect to be believed, when you attempt to deny the
FAR GREATER Historical slaughter caused by 20th Century ATHEIST
REGIMES!!!
Every one of them was a TOTALITARIAN SHITHOLE!!!!
Do YOU REALLY BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND CAN'T SEE
THE REALITY!???
Get that through your head before you resume your never-
ending crusade against intellectual honesty!!
You're barking up the wrong tree, like Yap the Yapping dog.
Paul Hyett
uk.politics.misc :
>On Feb 14, 7:00 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
>> "specious \0 >> 1: showy
>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>
>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
What I find amusing is that theists consider their faith to be enough
proof the God exists, but demand *proof* from atheists that God
*doesn't* exist...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Ivan Grozny
their minds of a belief in gods. It's as if they had no trust in
themselves, and wake up with the mantra every morning, open the
window
and shout out into the streets for all to hear:
" I don't believe in God!"
The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among
the
most intolerant. Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
Saying that "I don't believe in God or gods" is no evidence for
the proof of whether God or gods exist or not. It is simply an
opinion, and nothing more.
Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Two is only mathematically defined as the successor of one in the
closed system of logcal arithmetic. That may not apply in reality
over
all time and everywhere.
Ivan Grozny
Michael Gordge
> Get a life. Atheists seem to want to spend their life time purging
> their minds of a belief in gods.
You cant purge what's not there, ewe numb nut.
a-political
a-moral
a-theist
MG
Budikka666
Since the Romans described Christians as atheists, it's eminently
discernible that your "history" of atheism is as full of the same
insanely cross-posted, ignorant, and idiotic bullshit that typifies
your clueless messages. That's why you're a waste of skin.
Budikka
Michael Gordge
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Its not possible to prove a negative - ewe queer cunt.
Why the capital for "true"?
Ewe go to church dont ewe?
One what plus one what equals two what?
Hint, numbers without matter matter not.
MG
fasgnadh
> On Feb 14, 1:37 pm, parish.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Rosa Kleb demonstrates for all the how the Atheists in Stalin's time
dealt with Trotsky's scathing critique of their ideology and their
barbaric regime... they used the ice-pick
> <snip another redux of the Wicks troll's rant>
Now this is interesting, let us look first at the QUOTED MATERIAL
from a range of scholars which made up my post, and then examine
the tactics of Atheist Animal Farm's Thinkpol thug as she pretends
it was all a 'rant' by a 'troll' for that is the ENTIRETY of her
'argument'... petty and irrelevant lies and ad hom from a a moral
maggot and intellectual defective who cannot make a RATIONAL case,
because she IS an irrational one! B^D
To show clearly the SPURIOUS SOPHISTRY of the Atheist response,
which has been ENTIRELY ad hom.. I have highlighted below all
the DIRECT QUOTATIONS from reputable scholarly sources...
# Thus
This reveals the falsity of Atheist attempts at PERSONAL CHARACTER
ASSASSINATION through personal abuse, they want to do to me what they
did to Trotsky,, SILENCE THE DISSENTING VOICE;
<Unsnip all the facts the AtheiSith trolls cannot answer! B^>
fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>>A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
# >> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
# >> 1: showy
# >> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
# >> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
# >> sophistic <specious reasoning>
# >>
>>
>>
>> It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>
# >> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
# >>
# >>"In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος,
# >> from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".
# >> The word began to indicate more-intentional,
# >> active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
# >> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or
# >> "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier
# >> meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
# >> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render
@ >> atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun,
# >> there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism".
# >> Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos.
# >> The term found frequent use in the debate between early
# >> Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it,
# >> in the pejorative sense, to the other."[1]
# >>
Fascinating, from earliest times, it has been a pejorative
term, not only among the Theists, but also the agnostic Greeks! B^D
# >> "In English, the term atheism was derived from the
@ >> French athéisme in about 1587."[11] "The term atheist
# >> (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or
# >> disbelieves the existence of God",[2] predates atheism in
# >> English, being first attested in about 1571."[3] "Atheist
# >> as a label of practical godlessness was used at
# >> least as early as 1577." [4]
# >>
# >> "Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and
# >> seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still
# >> reserved exclusively for polemic
# >> ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have
# >> dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[5]
# >> "Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief
# >> in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting
# >> disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god." [6]
# >> "In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the
# >> expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities,
# >> though it remains common in Western society to
# >> describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[7]
# >> "Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical
# >> circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities",
# >> rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition
# >> has become popular in atheist communities, though
# >> its mainstream usage has been limited."[8]
BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
You will see, in alt.atheism, and especially in this thread,
the attempts by Athis-Sith Humpty Dumpties to try and re-define
the term to mean what THEY want it to mean. As with neo-Nazis.
the Athei-Sith have had to try and 're-badge' their ideology,
to overcome the DEEP REVULSION all decent folk feel towards the
massive crimes against humanity committed by Atheists in the 20th
Century Atheist holocausts.. They become enraged when anyone
uses historical reality to ridicule their feeble attempts to
pretend that 'words mean what we say they mean' rather than
what they have always meant to everyone!
Now here are the sources of all that research, carefully footnoted.
Note that none of the central facts are disputed by Atheists,
instead they have ALL, every single slandering hypocrite and liar,
tried to SLANDER me, with pitiful and weak AD HOM, rather than dispute
what they cannot dispute...
These FACTS AND the HISTORICAL REALITY they represent! B^)
Q.E.D
Chapter II of a Brief History of Atheism will follow shortly,
and the Atheist will fall into the silent teeth gnashing of
the intellectually ROUTED! B^]
# >>
# >>
# >>Footnotes
# >>
# >>[1] Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of
# >> the 1922 edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity.
# >> Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-201-8.
# >> "Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots
# >> and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are
# >> not Greek; their formation is not consonant
# >> with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotēs;
# >> to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
# >> correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as
# >> ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe
# >> censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one,
# >> and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do
# >> we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed."
# >>
# >>[2} "atheist". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
# >> 2nd ed. 1989.
# >>
# >>[3] Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571).
# >> The Psalmes of David and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries.
# >> pp. Ep. Ded. 3. "The Atheistes which say..there is no God."
# >> Translated from French.
# >>
# >>[4] Hanmer, Meredith (1577). The ancient ecclesiastical
# >> histories of the first six hundred years after
# >> Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius.
# >> London. pp. 63. OCLC 55193813. "The opinion which they
# >> conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men."
# >>
# >>[5] Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage.
# >> ISBN 0-09-927367-5.
# >>
# >>[6] In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western
# >> society, atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God",
# >> rather than more generally as "disbelief in deities".
# >> A clear distinction is rarely drawn in modern writings
# >> between these two definitions, but some archaic uses
# >> of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular
# >> God, not in polytheistic deities. It is on this
# >> basis that the obsolete term adevism was coined
# >> in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief
# >> in plural deities. Britannica (1911).
# >> "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
# >>
# >>[7] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
# >> University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.
# >>
# >>[8] Cline, Austin (2006). "What Is the Definition of Atheism?".
# >> about.com.http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/
# >> definition.htm. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
# >>
# >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
>
>
>> Why are you so obsessed with Stalin and Lenin?
They were not mentioned in my original post, but quoted when
an Atheist asked for proof that Atheism was a central part
of Lenin's guiding ideology.
It is a tactic of the Atheist Animal farm CrimeThink police
to ask for evidence and then ignore it an suggest you are 'obsessive'
for providing it! pfffffft!
>> Maybe they were atheists,
Damn right they were, fully paid up card carrying Atheist tyrants,
like EVERY Atheist leader in EVERY Atheist shithole tyranny!
Now you have been a very silly boy attempting such a weak attack
on my post.. you offer no facts, no evidence no rational argument,
and merely confirm that Atheists are in denial about the history
of their ideology and the HISTORICAL REALITY of atheism in PRAXIS! B^[
And so Comrade Rosa Kleb from the Kremlin Magisterium is going to
'advise' you of the Athei-Sith orthodoxy;
> You need to stop feeding the Wicks troll
What sort of self respecting Atheist lets Comrade Fran from
GroupThink Central tell him what he can and can't say, should
and shouldn't respond to! They REVEAL themselves in their
HYSTERICAL PANIC!
UnThink is the central tool of the Ministry of Truth, they don't
demonstrate the falsity of any view which is divergent from the
BORG Collective, because THEY CAN'T !! so they have to SHUT the
discussion DOWN!! 8^o Western World, 2009 and they are still acting
like the Atheist tyranny of the USSR, Maoist China and Pol Pot!
Character assasination is the Big Brother tool of simply DECLARING
Emmannuel Goldstein to be a 'Troll', and then making him an UnPerson!
Intellectual frauds like Nazism and Atheism CANNOT argue their case
rationally, so they MUST silence the rational argument of their opponents.
As the Atheist regimes of history show, Komrade Kleb is merely
following the Kremlin tradition, silence the Freethinkers who
challenge your irrational, indefensible BELIEFS!!!
Ice-pick or kill file, it all stems from the same Atheist imperative
to AVOID THE UNPALATABLE TRUTH!
Let us examine the work of a master NKVD sophist in action..
Next we have a little psychobabble slander.. if you can't
refute the SUBSTANCE, the FACTS, the EVIDENCE or the REASONED
ARGUMENT.. then 'intuit and 'insunuate' the *motive*!??!!!?? B^p
> He has no interest at all in what he is saying
That is prima facie an absurd lie.. I am fascinated by
the History of Atheism and have quoted many experts on the subject..
I am the only one who IS interested in the History of Atheism!
It is the Fran and the other intellectual DEFECTIVES of the Thought
Police, who not only can't debate me, but TELL OTHERS THEY MAY NOT
do so EITHER!!! 8^o
>and is thus indifferent to intellectual objection.
You have made none.
You never do.
You are completely lacking in intellectual or mortal integrity,
you vile Commie bitch!
> He persistently lies and misrepresents others in ways that are as
> odious as they are obvious.
I have cited all those sources VERBATIM, you have shown NO
MISREPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER.
In fact you have not dared to DEBATE THE SUBSTANCE AT ALL!
You are, as I have demonstrtated, a vile, slandering Commie Bitch.
I enjoy it when you beat me with the limp lettuce leaf of
your weak intellect and your weak Pravda puke! B^D
> He knows that this will provoke further responses
Of course, you Atheists screech like banshees whenever any
historical truth about Athei-Sith is posted, it exposes the
absolute bankruptcy of your THEORETICAL posturing!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA
You must feel like nothing has changed since the days
when you kissed Stalin's arse, licked Mao's and pretended
they were Rebolutionary heroes of the Working Class..
Most communists woke up to the Great Leap Backward and
the Cultural Devolution.. but you are still running their
propaganda.. and these atheists are clearly as weak minded
as those of last century, and so they swallow your orders
like dogs eating their own vomit!
it is a disgraceful spectacle, but you have no choice,
you cannot allow the truth to be debated, because it
destroys your mythological beliefs! B^D
> at which he can then bluster abusively and self-affirm.
Are you really anticipating that I will mock you for your
total failure to respond rationally and ridicule your attempts
to silence your Atheist cronies, Comrade Kleb!?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAA
Of course, to the victor goes the spoils, and you haven't even
attempted a rational response!
According to you, mere ASSERTION that Emmanuel Goldstein
is an Unperson makes it not only unecessary, but a THOUGHTCRIME
to even reflect on what he says, let alone debate it, let alone
LOGICALLY REBUT IT;
> Taking his content at its prima facie value cannot shed new light on
> any matter of importance.
Poor Fran, the Content is not mine!
It is the peer reviewed output of a variety of highly regarded
academic sholars on the subject.. all CITED VERBATIM!
Fran could have tried to show you some errors, some misrepresentaitons,
some lies or even overly enthusiastic argument, but clealrly SHE
COULD NOT FIND ANY!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA
Fran's posts are CLASSICS of Spurious Sophistry.. entirely EMPTY
of content, 100% fantasy fabrication, lies, slander, impugned
motives, intuited pseudo-facts, .. in other words.. total SHITE! B^D
> If you ignore the troll and save your energy for those who take what
> they post as the starting point for discussion,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHHA
It WAS a starting point, Comrade.. but you were all
INCAPABLE of any DISCUSSION!
That speaks volumes!!
As you PROVIDED NO RATIONAL RESPONSE, NO DISCUSSION
OF THE SUBSTANCE, all that is left is for me to provide
a meta-commentary on what you DID do, your tactics of
evasion and attempted character assassination.
Here is a photo of your post:
http://www.univie.ac.at/cga/art/KlebbShoes.jpg
Over 50% of the responses are Atheist moan-bonding and
bitching about the person you MISTAKENLY view as the
author.. rather than the IDEAS of all those independent
and reputable scholars! They are atheistsm having snipped
ALL of the substance, assuring each other that it is the
wok of an evil mind.. When it is simply a presentation
to all of you of the History of Atheism, from the EXPERTS!
That apparently TERRIFIES YOU ALL, and we can see why! B^)
You fraudulent fucks are hung on your own petard!
Your posts remind us all of the Ministry of Truth's claims
that the traitors and spies from Oceania will "never impress
anyone", which makes you wonder why the Thought Police bothered! B^D
> the Wicks troll will
> continue to yammer away impressing nobody whose opinion would be worth
> winning and seriously annoying most,
Let everyone understand what Fran is saying. The mere presentation
of the most common mainstream views of ATHEIST history is so
objectionable to these deniers of free speech and free thought, that
it is to be denounced by the Party as 'annoying most' Athei Sith
in a Discussion group!!!!!!! 8^o
Really? You are ALL as PISS WEAK and PUSSY WHIPPED as this
bizarre and twisted commie bitch thinks?!!???
I must have really caused some damage to your fragile egos
and brittle beliefs if posting about your History produces
such an INASANE HISSY FIT!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAAAA
Thanks Fran, deeing the depth of YOUR teeth gnashing apoplectic
rage means I have really overloaded your Sophistry Circuits
with this one.. and encourages me to continue work on Chapter II.
I advise ALL Athei-Sith to follow The Borg Collectives advice and
do not respond to anything I post on Atheist History for the following
reasons;
a) intellectually you clearly can't even follow the arguments made
by every one of those quoted experts.. you just embarrass
yourself trying.
b) you can't deny History, and your standard script to any post,
"Prove God Exists" no matter how inappropriate your response
is to the subject, will simply not work here, I am discussing
ATHEISM, not God. B^)
c) Komrade Rosa Klebb will kick you in the nuts with her
Switch Blade shoes if you defy the Borg Collectives
decision that you are all incapable of rational debate
with a superior intellect armed with facts, and so
your only chance is to roll up in a ball and pretend
you are an Echidna.
http://fatvegan.com/wp/attachments/2006/07/cess-the-echidna.jpg
> whatever their views on the status of god.
Someone ask this lying, skanky Commie bitch WTF God has
to do with this thread!??
B^D
Remember, if you DON'T WANT THE Athei-Sith ThoughtPol
to turn on YOU for daring to speak OUTSIDE the boundaries
of GroupThink, do EXACTLY what the Kommissar tells you;
> You on the other hand, will stand a better chance of
> enjoying your sojourns here and certainly waste less time.
That has been a paid political Directive from the
Ministry of Truth at Atheist central, where there
IS NO IDEOLOGY to be protected, according to them!!! B^p
B^D
> Fran
Fran, that was hysterical.. even for you! B^]
Do you think the Atheists are still as malleable
and stupid as when you Communists played Hitler to their
Mussolini, last century? B^)
fasgnadh
> On Feb 14, 1:37 pm, parish.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Rosa Kleb demonstrates for all the how the Atheists in Stalin's time
dealt with Trotsky's scathing critique of their ideology and their
barbaric regime... they used the ice-pick
> <snip another redux of the Wicks troll's rant>
Now this is interesting, let us look first at the QUOTED MATERIAL
from a range of scholars which made up my post, and then examine
the tactics of Atheist Animal Farm's Thinkpol thug as she pretends
it was all a 'rant' by a 'troll' for that is the ENTIRETY of her
'argument'... petty and irrelevant lies and ad hom from a a moral
maggot and intellectual defective who cannot make a RATIONAL case,
because she IS an irrational one! B^D
To show clearly the SPURIOUS SOPHISTRY of the Atheist response,
which has been ENTIRELY ad hom.. I have highlighted below all
the DIRECT QUOTATIONS from reputable scholarly sources...
# Thus
This reveals the falsity of Atheist attempts at PERSONAL CHARACTER
ASSASSINATION through personal abuse, they want to do to me what they
did to Trotsky,, SILENCE THE DISSENTING VOICE;
<Unsnip all the facts the AtheiSith trolls cannot answer! B^>
fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>>A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
# >> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
# >> 1: showy
# >> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
# >> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
# >> sophistic <specious reasoning>
# >>
>>
>>
>> It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>
BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Q.E.D
>
>> Why are you so obsessed with Stalin and Lenin?
They were not mentioned in my original post, but quoted when
>> Maybe they were atheists,
> He has no interest at all in what he is saying
That is prima facie an absurd lie.. I am fascinated by
the History of Atheism and have quoted many experts on the subject..
I am the only one who IS interested in the History of Atheism!
It is the Fran and the other intellectual DEFECTIVES of the Thought
Police, who not only can't debate me, but TELL OTHERS THEY MAY NOT
do so EITHER!!! 8^o
> and is thus indifferent to intellectual objection.
You have made none.
You never do.
You are completely lacking in intellectual or mortal integrity,
you vile Commie bitch!
> He persistently lies and misrepresents others in ways that are as
> odious as they are obvious.
I have cited all those sources VERBATIM, you have shown NO
MISREPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER.
In fact you have not dared to DEBATE THE SUBSTANCE AT ALL!
You are, as I have demonstrtated, a vile, slandering Commie Bitch.
I enjoy it when you beat me with the limp lettuce leaf of
your weak intellect and your weak Pravda puke! B^D
> He knows that this will provoke further responses
Of course, you Atheists screech like banshees whenever any
historical truth about Athei-Sith is posted, it exposes the
absolute bankruptcy of your THEORETICAL posturing!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA
You must feel like nothing has changed since the days
when you kissed Stalin's arse, licked Mao's and pretended
they were Rebolutionary heroes of the Working Class..
Most communists woke up to the Great Leap Backward and
the Cultural Devolution.. but you are still running their
propaganda.. and these atheists are clearly as weak minded
as those of last century, and so they swallow your orders
like dogs eating their own vomit!
it is a disgraceful spectacle, but you have no choice,
you cannot allow the truth to be debated, because it
destroys your mythological beliefs! B^D
> at which he can then bluster abusively and self-affirm.
Are you really anticipating that I will mock you for your
total failure to respond rationally and ridicule your attempts
to silence your Atheist cronies, Comrade Kleb!?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAA
Of course, to the victor goes the spoils, and you haven't even
attempted a rational response!
According to you, mere ASSERTION that Emmanuel Goldstein
is an Unperson makes it not only unecessary, but a THOUGHTCRIME
to even reflect on what he says, let alone debate it, let alone
LOGICALLY REBUT IT;
> Taking his content at its prima facie value cannot shed new light on
> any matter of importance.
Poor Fran, the Content is not mine!
It is the peer reviewed output of a variety of highly regarded
academic sholars on the subject.. all CITED VERBATIM!
Fran could have tried to show you some errors, some misrepresentaitons,
some lies or even overly enthusiastic argument, but clealrly SHE
COULD NOT FIND ANY!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA
Fran's posts are CLASSICS of Spurious Sophistry.. entirely EMPTY
of content, 100% fantasy fabrication, lies, slander, impugned
motives, intuited pseudo-facts, .. in other words.. total SHITE! B^D
> If you ignore the troll and save your energy for those who take what
> they post as the starting point for discussion,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHHA
It WAS a starting point, Comrade.. but you were all
INCAPABLE of any DISCUSSION!
That speaks volumes!!
As you PROVIDED NO RATIONAL RESPONSE, NO DISCUSSION
OF THE SUBSTANCE, all that is left is for me to provide
a meta-commentary on what you DID do, your tactics of
evasion and attempted character assassination.
Here is a photo of your post:
http://www.univie.ac.at/cga/art/KlebbShoes.jpg
Over 50% of the responses are Atheist moan-bonding and
bitching about the person you MISTAKENLY view as the
author.. rather than the IDEAS of all those independent
and reputable scholars! They are atheistsm having snipped
ALL of the substance, assuring each other that it is the
wok of an evil mind.. When it is simply a presentation
to all of you of the History of Atheism, from the EXPERTS!
That apparently TERRIFIES YOU ALL, and we can see why! B^)
You fraudulent fucks are hung on your own petard!
Your posts remind us all of the Ministry of Truth's claims
that the traitors and spies from Oceania will "never impress
anyone", which makes you wonder why the Thought Police bothered! B^D
> the Wicks troll will
> continue to yammer away impressing nobody whose opinion would be worth
> winning and seriously annoying most,
Let everyone understand what Fran is saying. The mere presentation
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAAAA
http://fatvegan.com/wp/attachments/2006/07/cess-the-echidna.jpg
> whatever their views on the status of god.
Someone ask this lying, skanky Commie bitch WTF God has
to do with this thread!??
B^D
Remember, if you DON'T WANT THE Athei-Sith ThoughtPol
to turn on YOU for daring to speak OUTSIDE the boundaries
of GroupThink, do EXACTLY what the Kommissar tells you;
> You on the other hand, will stand a better chance of
> enjoying your sojourns here and certainly waste less time.
That has been a paid political Directive from the
Ministry of Truth at Atheist central, where there
IS NO IDEOLOGY to be protected, according to them!!! B^p
B^D
> Fran
Fran, that was hysterical.. even for you! B^]
Do you think the Atheists are still as malleable
and stupid as when you Communists played Hitler to their
Mussolini, last century? B^)
Robibnikoff
"Ivan Grozny" <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d3d463d-2e5e-4cd4...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Get a life. Atheists seem to want to spend their life time purging
> their minds of a belief in gods.
Idiot.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
John Baker
You slept through Logic 101, didn't you, Sport?
fasgnadh
> On Feb 14, 5:13 pm, parish.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 7:54 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 1:37 pm, parish.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> < troll's rant>
>>> You need to stop
>>> troll.
>>> He has no interest
>>> He persistently lies
>>> He knows that this will provoke
>>> content at its prima facie value cannot shed new light
>>> ignore the troll
>>> save your energy
>>> continue to yammer away
>>> impressing nobody whose opinion would be worth winning
>>> seriously annoying most,
>>>
>>> You on the other hand, will stand a better chance of
>>> enjoying your sojourns here and certainly waste less time.
...
>>> Fran
>>
Poor Fran, Despite her clear directive NOT to have discussion
in a Discussion group! { B^p }, ..there are already 26 posts
in this thread!
THE ATHEISTS ARE FINALLY REBELLING AGAINST THE COMMIES..
NINETY FUCKING TWO YEARS TOO LATE!!!!
BWEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHHAAHA!
From the Kremlin Teletype;
"Komrade Klebb, Borg central reports that your Specious
Sophistry has been entirely ineffective.. the Atheists
completely lack discipline, like Italian soldiers in
WWII they just won't listen to the Deathshead Stormtroopers! B^D
If you can't get those weak minded tools to follow your
directives we suggest you kick yourself in the arse with
your poisoned Switch-Blade Shoes, you have failed the BORG!" B^D
Apparently only one weak minded sheep tried to do what Klebb
directed all atheists to do, and he's too incompetent even to
IGNORE SOMEONE, without technical assistance;
>> Can you tell me how to plonk him? I'm new here and don't know how
>
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!
Priceless!! The smooth functioning Athei-Sith DISCUSSION GROUP
leaps into action to assist a young arse stuffer to insert his cranium
in the event he experiences COGNITIVE DISSONANCE due to exposure
to HISTORICAL REALITY, or the threat of rational discussion breaking out!!!!
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHHAAHAHAAAAAA
Atheists try to shut down rational debate any
way they can..historically this has included
religious persecution, forced indoctrination,
especially of children, torture, terror slaughter
of over 40,000,000 people in the Atheist hoklocausts of
the 20th century, and, when thay have no power, as now,
by sophistry, slander, pogrom and pack-hunt, hypocrisy,and lies
# "The underlying theory of NewSpeak is that if something can't
# be said, then it can't be thought."
# This suits the totalitarian
# regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative
# thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest
# edition of NewSpeak — or speech impossible by removing
# any words or possible constructs which describe the
# ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on."
> If you are using the google interface there is no capacity to "plonk"
> anyone. Just note him and move on.
I see you are unable to folow your own orders! B^D
All Animal Farm Athei-Sith are Equal, but Some are more Equal than others!
> If you are using a dedicated newsreader there are functions to cease
> gathering threads or posts from nominated persons.
>
> I use google, but as soon as I see "fasgnadh" or something in his
> native format I simply move on.
Liar. Here you are, responding, (in your piss-weak
manner, admittedly ;-) by attempting character assassination, slander
and shutting down discussion which you believe threatens the Atheist
GroupMind's ORTHODOXY!
You are EXACTLY like the Atheist tyrannies in attempting to avoid
unpalatable Historical truths by BURYING IT, and silencing rational
discussion and fee thought.
But they aren't LISTENING to you, Commissar Klebb,
and so you have gone on the record advocating that
my posts are not ones you can read, understand or
respond to.
Excellent, your shite stinks up an entire thread!
I will remind you of your stinking hypocrisy if you
ever respond to any of my threads, and remind the
Athei-Sith Sheep what a liar their butch Commie
dominatrix is! B^D
If you hate open discussion, you vile commie bitch, why
are you here at all? B^]
That was rhetorical, I have no interest in your motivations,
and certainly will not imitate you by INVENTING specious ones
and attributing them to opponents.
> Fran
Oh, BTW, for those interested in History, and in particular the
HISTORY OF ATHEISM, there is the starting point to a discussion
here, and Comrade Klebb has promised to shut the fuck up,
for the duration!
THERE IS A GOD!!! B^D
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAA
To show clearly the SPURIOUS SOPHISTRY of the response by Klebb
and the other aThei_Sith, which has been ENTIRELY ad hom..
I have highlighted below all the DIRECT QUOTATIONS from reputable
scholarly sources...
# Thus
This reveals the falsity of Atheist attempts at PERSONAL CHARACTER
ASSASSINATION through personal abuse and ad hom, and their fear
and trepidation when they are confronted with UNPALATABLE HISTORICAL
TRUTH...their response is to shut down discussion and
SILENCE THE DISSENTING VOICE, ask trotsky about their ICE PICKS!;
<Unsnip all the facts the AtheiSith trolls cannot answer! B^>
fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>>A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
# >> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
# >> 1: showy
# >> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
# >> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
# >> sophistic <specious reasoning>
# >>
>>
>>
>> It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>
BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Q.E.D
John Baker
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Get a life. Atheists seem to want to spend their life time purging
>their minds of a belief in gods. It's as if they had no trust in
>themselves, and wake up with the mantra every morning, open the
>window
>and shout out into the streets for all to hear:
People who post idiotic horseshit like this almost always end up
saying something that proves beyond doubt that they're complete
fucking loons and idiots besides.....
>
>" I don't believe in God!"
>
>The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
>Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among
>the
>most intolerant. Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
>
>Saying that "I don't believe in God or gods" is no evidence for
>the proof of whether God or gods exist or not. It is simply an
>opinion, and nothing more.
>
>Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
>absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
..... and there it is.
fasgnadh
Of all the atheist posters who responded to this clearly
damaging historical review of Atheism, none dealt with the
facts and evidence provided, none showed any interest, critical
or otherwise, in the history of their ideology, none refuted
or rebutted a SINGLE fact, and none knew enough about Atheism
to add to the information I have gleaned from a variety of
sources.
To show clearly the SPURIOUS SOPHISTRY of the Atheist response,
which has been ENTIRELY ad hom.. I have highlighted below all
the DIRECT QUOTATIONS from reputable scholarly sources...
This reveals the falsity of Atheist attempts at PERSONAL CHARACTER
ASSASSINATION through personal abuse;
To show clearly the SPURIOUS SOPHISTRY of the Atheist response,
which has been ENTIRELY ad hom.. I have highlighted below all
the DIRECT QUOTATIONS from reputable scholarly sources...
# Thus
This reveals the falsity of Atheist attempts at PERSONAL CHARACTER
ASSASSINATION through personal abuse, they want to do to me what they
did to Trotsky,, SILENCE THE DISSENTING VOICE;
<Unsnip all the facts the AtheiSith trolls cannot answer! B^>
BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Q.E.D
>
> You have been crusading against Atheism for a long time.
You think citing reputable sources on the history of Atheism
is a 'crusade against atheism'!!!???
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA
Only if you are part of the weak-minded, anti-intellectual Atheist
thought police! B^D Liars like you and knuckle dragging thugs
from the Ministry of truth like Comrade Klebb clearly FEEL
THREATENED by and are AFRAID of, HISTORICAL TRUTH!
You both start lying about 'motive' and anything else
tha cannot be backed up by facts, because clearly *I*
ahve the monopoly on those!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAA
My success in revealing the intellectual weakness, the
moral depravity and the fearful and venomous hypocrisy of
Athei-Sith, demonstrated by the response to this thread, encourages
me to continue with the PURGE, a term you are all familiar with! B^]
But if you think this is either a 'crusade', or a 'long time' so far,
you have a rude awakening coming your way!
I have tackled jackal pack hunting covens of irrational ideologues
before and it took years of patient work before the Townsville Taliban
were single handedly routed! B^]
I will be like water on the rock hard obstinance of Athei-Sith! B^D
Now, you can keep chanting your MANTRA of self delusion in response to
EVERY new piece of HISTORICAL evidence placed before you, but is is just
making you all look more desperate and more stupid! B^}
All of the above material was peer reviewed work by reputable experts in
the field, and your ONLY response is to insinuate that it is a personal
vendetta by me... presenting everyone with the facts and inviting
discussion??? B^)
It seems you are ALL scurrying for SPURIOUS pretexts to cover your
INABILITY to discuss the above in any meaningful way
> However, you
> still fail to comprehend
How can I 'fail to comprehend' what you fools ASSERT (in
flagrant opposition to the HISTORICAL RECORD!!), and which
you have no evidence for! Prove your case, or continue to BE ONE!
> that "atheism" is not an ideology,
Assertion without evidence is NOT an argument.
I have shown, CITING HISTORICAL REALITY that you are wrong,
your OPINION is already refuted, and re-stating it dogmatically
only weakens, not furthers, your assertions!
I leave every baseless OPINION, unsupported by any
evidence, and FLAGRANTLY contradicting the DOCUMENTED
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF ATHEIST PRAXIS.. here to embarass
you further;
> but merely
> a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
Your ignorance of the historical reality of Athreism
is clearly a result of no more than Avoidance and Denial.
Dogmatic chanting of your self-deluding DOGMA, is a defining
feature of Atheists;
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t029/T029229A.jpg
> You are barking on a wrong tree....stop barking as your energy is
> wasting your time.
Hardly... once again I have eviscerated the Atheist delusion,
publicly and comprehensively, and you are incapable of a convincing
rational response, so you resort to lying and personal attacks,
> You see, the real problem with you and your loons is that you all
> never wish to utilize your time for the good of a society,
History is essential to understanding where we are.
And the Truth will set us Free.. well, not you, because
all you do is DENY it, but those with eyes can see.
I like this description of your pathetic attempt to
defend you THEORETICAL IDEOLOGICAL DELUSION in the face
of experts describing the historical reality of Atheism;
> but spend
> it in the defense of the stupid imagination of the human mind.
B^D Priceless Irony! Unintentional, but priceless! B^D
Will leave you as your mindslime slips away into irrelevance...
> Like all the vast money collected by the churches, not for the poor
> and needy, but for the cause of defending the useless religion through
> more churches, refurnishing the "house of god", lavish life style of
> preaches/pastors, purchase of villa, investments for church
> authorities, missionary works to spread falsehood, etc.
> If those latter efforts were for the poor and poverty, then we might
> not see African nation in their current dire state of desperation.
Nothing to do with the History of Atheism, at all.
You are a Spent Force. Run Along Lightweight!
Next Yapping Atheist nutjob, afraid of your own HISTORY, please!
Richo
> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>
> 1: showy
> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>
> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
> ignorant of the origins of their ideology
Most likely because atheism isn't their ideology.
Atheism isn't *my* ideology.
I JUST DONT BELIEVE IN GODS.
That's it.
Calling THAT an ideology - is just Stooopid.
Mark.
Richo
<snip>
> Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among
> the most intolerant.
Fasgnadh isn't an atheist!
He will be most annoyed by your accusation.
Mark.
fasgnadh
> Yap wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 7:00 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>
>>> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
>>> 1: showy
>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>
>
History does not support your opinion.
Great and enduring civilisation have been raised up by religion,
Atheism has produced nothing but half a dozen miserable shitholes,
barbaric Atheist tyrannies, capable only of terror, torture,
repression and the murder of over 40,000,000 victims in the
Atheist holocausts of the 20th century.
Try and have some facts to back up your bullshit, next time,
otherwise people might laugh ate you.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA
> and totally unlike the careful consideration of fact
> and logic demonstrated by evolution.
WTF has that got to do with anything???
In Australia 70% of students are educated in state schools
20.2% of students in Catholic schools, and
most of the rest of the private schools are
Protestant, with a sprinkling of Jewish,
Muslim and other...
All teach evolution!
In the last 10 years, the Howard government, Bush Arselickers,
funded a handful of Christian fundie schools, and some Exclusive
Brethren ones (where children are denied access to computers!! 8^o)
God knows what those children are exposed to, you and I don't.
So what the fuck does evolution, which EVERY MAINSTREAM FAITH
teaches in its schools got to do with this thread on the
history of ATHEISM, you irrational nutjob???
After all DARWIN HIMSELF declared emphatically that
he WAS NOT AN ATHEIST..
"Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the
definition of the term ...
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist
in the sense of denying the existence of a God.
I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older),
but not always, -- that an agnostic would be the most correct
description of my state of mind."
- Charles Darwin, 1879
[20 years AFTER publication of The Origin of Species!!! ]
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/130/125/
Have you been sent by Scientology wackjobs to pose as
an atheist in order to make them look STUPID???
I don't approve of such dirty tactics.. leave that pathetic
shit to Fran, aka Rosa Klebb! B^D
Anyway, We note that you found nothing you could
disagree with in the substantive post...
>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>> Century.
>>>
>>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>>
>>> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
>>>
>>> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative
>>> ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
>>> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
>>> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
>>> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
>>> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
>>> "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs),
>>> "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos.
>>> The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and
>>> Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to
>>> the other.[1]
>>>
>>> In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in
>>> about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one
>>> who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[2] predates atheism in
>>> English, being first attested in about 1571.[3] Atheist as a label of
>>> practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[4]
>>>
>>> Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth
>>> centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic
>>> ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of
>>> calling himself an atheist."[5] Atheism was first used to describe a
>>> self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting
>>> disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[6] In the 20th century,
>>> globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to
>>> disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to
>>> describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[7] Most recently, there
>>> has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as
>>> the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own
>>> right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though
>>> its mainstream usage has been limited.[8]
>>>
>>> Footnotes
>>>
>>> [1] Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922
>>> edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN
>>> 0-89005-201-8. "Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots
>>> and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek;
>>> their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said
>>> atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
>>> correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos
>>> was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this
>>> use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do
>>> we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed."
>>>
>>> [2} "atheist". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
>>> 2nd ed. 1989.
>>>
>>> [3] Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571). The Psalmes of David
>>> and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries. pp. Ep. Ded. 3. "The
>>> Atheistes which say..there is no God." Translated from French.
>>>
>>> [4] Hanmer, Meredith (1577). The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of
>>> the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates,
>>> and Evagrius. London. pp. 63. OCLC 55193813. "The opinion which they
>>> conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men."
>>>
>>> [5] Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage.
>>> ISBN 0-09-927367-5.
>>>
>>> [6] In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society,
>>> atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more
>>> generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely drawn
>>> in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses
>>> of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in
>>> polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term adevism
>>> was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in
>>> plural deities. Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
>>>
>>> [7] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
>>> University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.
>>>
>>> [8] Cline, Austin (2006). "What Is the Definition of Atheism?".
>>> about.com.http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/
>>> definition.htm. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
>>>
>>> --
--
How Can Stalin's attendance at a Catholic Seminary
as a youth be the cause of the 'Authoritarian Soviet
State', when it was established by LENIN!!!!!!??? B^D
# From: Fran <Fran...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.religion,aus.politics,uk.politics.misc
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus
# Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<bf35a180-1029-482c...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
#
# > It's an interesting fact that the "atheist" Stalin
# > learnt his repressive methodology and
# > his paranoia at the knees of Russian Orthodox
# > priests in that seminary
# > in Georgia, and merely mapped what he had learned onto the new
# > authoritarian Russian state.
thomas p.
"turtoni" <tur...@fastmail.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:e689b81d-e0cb-428e...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
That is an ideology.
Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
"supernatural".
-----------------------------------------
thomas p:
No and no. Someone makes a claim. I do not believe the claim, because he
is unable to support it with any evidence. That is not an ideology, and it
is quite reasonable.
snip
thomas p.
"Ivan Grozny" <cjdro...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:6d3d463d-2e5e-4cd4...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Get a life. Atheists seem to want to spend their life time purging
> their minds of a belief in gods. It's as if they had no trust in
> themselves, and wake up with the mantra every morning, open the
> window
> and shout out into the streets for all to hear:
>
> " I don't believe in God!"
Where? I have never seen that done.
>
> The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
> Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among
> the
> most intolerant. Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
>
> Saying that "I don't believe in God or gods" is no evidence for
> the proof of whether God or gods exist or not. It is simply an
> opinion, and nothing more.
So?
>
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
Prove what, that I do not believe in a god? You are being silly.
>
> Two is only mathematically defined as the successor of one in the
> closed system of logcal arithmetic. That may not apply in reality
> over
> all time and everywhere.
>
And King Charles II of England had many mistresses.
Green Lantern
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89b58abd-b5be-49b2...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
Fran
This movement could be modelled by a vector Flan.
fasgnadh
> On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
>> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
>
> That is an ideology.
>
The Bus Belief Ads were a classic admission that they
have ideas they wanted to proselytise! B^D
The had an organisation, raised funds and paid to have
their OPINIONs advertised, and the UK advertising
standards association declared their views had NO
EVIDENCE to support them! B^D
Which was hilarious, given that their standard response to ANY
subject is to ignore it and petulantly demand: "Prove God".
They couldn't even prove their own public statements of belief! B^D
I have tried to suggest that PROOFs rarely exist outside of mathematics,
but unfortunately most of them have are not scientifically trained,
nor do they understand Epistemology..
So I have attempted the less intellectually demanding
Historical approach.. and still they are chronic dullards! B^D
> Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
> "supernatural".
>
> It's merely intelligent to be at the very least; agnostic.
>
Agreed. that is a perfectly rational and defensible position.
it is because Atheists know their position isn't, that
they resort to such specious arguments.
> But sure, any information aka ramblings of the primates must in
> essence be limited.
>
> Stating that you know that there is no "supernatural" is hubris aka a
> kind of magic.. THE IRONY.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUMWy4hqAg
Amusing, aren't they! B^)
It is, of course, an intellectually dishonest attempt
to distance themselves from the PRAXIS of 20th Century
Atheism.. for obvious reasons. Every Atheist regime
was a totalitarian nightmare, forced indoctrination
of adults in 're-education' camps and of children in schools;
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...
all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" - Stalin
- E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
And Atheist 'thinkers' have clearly not evolved much
from those two! B^)
They mimic Humpty Dumpty in asserting that a term which
has had genuine historical meaning for TENS OF CENTURIES, can simply
be ignored and rewritten to "Mean what they want it to mean"..
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
in a rather scornful tone,'
it means just what I choose it to mean,
neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice,
'whether you can make words mean so
many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty,
'which is to be master - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything;
so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
'They've a temper, some of them
- particularly verbs: they're the proudest
- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs
- however, I can manage the whole lot of them!
Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice,
'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,'
said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased.
'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had
enough of that subject, and it would be just
as well if you'd mention what you mean to
do next, as I suppose you don't mean to
stop here all the rest of your life.'
In this thread we actually observe Atheistic communists
advising other Atheists that they have "had enough of
that subject" and they should ignore further discussion,
if they know what is good for them! 8^o
Discussion free Discussion groups! Only from Athei-Sith! B^D
fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>>A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
# >> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
# >> 1: showy
# >> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
# >> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
# >> sophistic <specious reasoning>
# >>
>>
>>
>> It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>
BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Q.E.D
# >>[6] In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society,
# >>atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more
# >>generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely
drawn
# >>in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses
# >>of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in
# >>polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term
adevism
# >>was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in
# >>plural deities. Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
# >>
# >>[7] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
# >>University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.
# >>
# >>[8] Cline, Austin (2006). "What Is the Definition of Atheism?".
# >>about.com.http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/
# >>definition.htm. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
# >>
# >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
--
fasgnadh
http://sundials.org/about/humptyg.gif
> <Delusion snipped>
# "The underlying theory of NewSpeak is that if something can't
# be said, then it can't be thought."
# This suits the totalitarian
# regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative
# thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest
# edition of NewSpeak — or speech impossible by removing
# any words or possible constructs which describe the
# ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on."
>
> PDW
dolf
I'd like to get your opinion on the whitewashing as claimed piety, this
historical perspective as the 'suspected of murder or any injury against
a particular one person' Jesus of Nazareth, of pogroms as holocaust
against their own people and of destruction against the Jewish Temple as
depicted in Titus' Arch of #81 CE despite the pacifist claim to be
'severely prohibited from engaging in any violent action.'
That by such paralytic historical dependency on Chaldean religious
mysticism, are you really a "Jew who follows the Torah" or a "pious
hymenealist cultist Gregorian calendar Gentile" who are in need of
repentance, with respect to a continuing injury against the sovereign
autonomic right as the peace of mind which comes with regulative
free-will. Which was once set in stone in the Most Holy place of that
Temple?--Israel's Sovereignty: #294 ('oth cycle) and #237 - USE of FORCE
is shown as part of 39 elements to the Gospel of John 18 to 21:"
#40 (Mm) - [zen: 2, row: 5, col: 8, SUPER: #366 / #72 - Self-Love/
Holding Oneself Dear; I-Ching: H39 - Obstacles; Tetra: #79 -
Difficulties; EGO: #315 / #78 - Recognizing Fidelity/ Trust in Faith;
I-Ching: H59 - Dispersal; Tetra: #47 - Pattern]
@Category: [Super: #294 / #75 - Destructiveness of Envy/ Harmed Through
Greed; I-Ching: H52 - Inaction; Tetra: #72 - Hardness, Ego: #237 / #30 -
Government without Coercion/ Be Chary of War; I-Ching: H45 -
Congregation; Tetra: #59 - Massing] mode: 1
“Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to
him, ‘Are you the King of Jews?’
Jesus answered him, ‘Are you speaking for yourself on this, or did
others tell you this about me?’
Pilate answered, ‘Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have
delivered you to me. What have you done?’” [John 18:33-35]
#80 (Qq) - [zen: 2, row: 4, col: 5, SUPER: #294 / #28 - Opposites and
Primitivism/ Returning to Simplicity; I-Ching: H24 - Turning Point;
Tetra: #2 - Full Circle; EGO: #433 / #23 - Constancy of Guiding
Concepts/ Emptiness & Non-Existence; I-Ching: H18 - Arresting Decay;
Tetra: #26 - Endeavor]
@Category: [Super: #237 / #71 - Know-How as a Disease/ Disease of
Knowledge; I-Ching: H38 - Opposition; Tetra: #6 - Contrariety, Ego: #314
/ #72 - Self-Love/ Holding Oneself Dear; I-Ching: H39 - Obstacles;
Tetra: #79 - Difficulties] mode: 0
“Pilate then went out again, and said to them, ‘Behold, I am bringing
him out to you, that you may know that I find no fault in him.” Then
Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And
Pilate said to them, ‘Behold the man!’
Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw him, they cried out,
saying, ‘Crucify him, crucify him!’
Pilate said to them, ‘You take him and crucify him, for I find no fault
in him.’” [John 19:4-6]
The goal of Judaism and Jewish life is the achievement of personal and
national peace and harmony. Yet the Torah does not advocate radical
pacifism. The Torah provides for the concept of milchemet mitzvah [cf:
MILCHAMAH #143 from original Hebrew #20 #40 #30 #8 #30 #5 (H4421)
meaning generally war; from the primitive root (H3898) #30 #8 #40 = #78
- Recognizing Fidelity/ Trust in Faith; I-Ching: H59 - Dispersal; Tetra:
#47 - Pattern] – a war that is an absolute necessity such as the war
against Amalek {a people that licks up as the epitome of evil incarnate
in Torah terms} or a war of self-defense and self-preservation. The
Torah also provides for wars that are titled milchemet reshut – wars
that are permissible even if on the surface the war is not currently
deemed necessary in the eyes of many. [Courtesy and (c) 2009, Rabbi
Berel Wein, Humane War, Project Genesis]
- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/germination.html
Sanity's Little Helper
He slept through school.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"A fool hath said in his heart: "There is no God"". Wise men and women say
it out loud.
Not authentic without this signature.
walksalone
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:21:20 -0800, parish.matt wrote:
>
>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>
>>> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
>>> 1: showy
>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure 3: having
>>> a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>
>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology,
>> <snip rest of idiotic drivel>
>> What part of "atheism is not an ideology" do you not understand?
>
> The part with words...
>
>
>
& here I was under the impression that he was doing real good. I thought
he was having no problem understanding the word, right up to the letter A.
After which of course, he was lost again. Or still as the case may be.
walksalone who does understand, theism is a hinderence to one's ability to
reason & understand anything that does not re-enforce their fears.
Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an
increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with
reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order
[...] and the like." - Justice William O. Douglas
magicus
> On Feb 14, 5:13 pm, parish.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 7:54 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
... stuff snipped ...
>> Can you tell me how to plonk him? I'm new here and don't know how
>
> If you are using the google interface there is no capacity to "plonk"
> anyone. Just note him and move on.
>
> If you are using a dedicated newsreader there are functions to cease
> gathering threads or posts from nominated persons.
>
> I use google, but as soon as I see "fasgnadh" or something in his
> native format I simply move on.
>
> Fran
Actually, there is a way if you use Firefox:
(http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/)
1. Install Greasemonkey:
(https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748)
2. Install Google Groups KillFile:
http://www.penney.org/google-groups-killfile-351-released.html
3. Plonk away! ;-P
ciao,
f
--
I was born not knowing and have only had a little time to change that
here and there.
-- Richard Feynman
raven1
wrote:
>raven1 wrote, but could not dispute a single historical fact of my post!
> 8^D :
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:14:25 GMT, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> parish.matt is so terrified of FACTS and LOGIC, he snips and runs:
>>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>>>
>>>>> "specious \?sp?-sh?s\
>>>>> 1: showy
>>>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>> <snip rest of idiotic drivel>
>>> Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid by the historical facts,
>>> clear evidence and Scholarly (rational) argument, that your only
>>> response is to SNIP it ALL, and RUN AWAY like fearful infants,
>>> screeching hysterically that ONLY YOUR VIEW matters! B^D
>>>
>>> We took a photo of you trying to avoid the issues:
>>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
>>>
>>>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>>>> Century.
>>>>>
>>>>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>>>>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>>>>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>>>>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>>>>
>>>>> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
>>>>>
>>>>> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (?????, from the privative
>>>>> ?- + ???? "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
>>>>> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
>>>>> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
>>>>> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ?????? (aseb?s) or "impious".
>>>>> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
>>>>> "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ??????? (atheot?s),
>>>>> "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos.
>>>>> The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and
>>>>> Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to
>>>>> the other.[1]
>>>>>
>>>>> In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in
>>>>> about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one
>>>>> who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[2] predates atheism in
>>>>> English, being first attested in about 1571.[3] Atheist as a label of
>>>>> practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[4]
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth
>>>>> centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic
>>>>> ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of
>>>>> calling himself an atheist."[5] Atheism was first used to describe a
>>>>> self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting
>>>>> disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[6] In the 20th century,
>>>>> globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to
>>>>> disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to
>>>>> describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[7] Most recently, there
>>>>> has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as
>>>>> the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own
>>>>> right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though
>>>>> its mainstream usage has been limited.[8]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Footnotes
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922
>>>>> edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN
>>>>> 0-89005-201-8. "Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots
>>>>> and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek;
>>>>> their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said
>>>>> atheos and atheot?s; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
>>>>> correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos
>>>>> was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this
>>>>> use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do
>>>>> we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed."
>>>>>
>>>>> [2} "atheist". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
>>>>> 2nd ed. 1989.
>>>>>
>>>>> [3] Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571). The Psalmes of David
>>>>> and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries. pp. Ep. Ded. 3. "The
>>>>> Atheistes which say..there is no God." Translated from French.
>>>>>
>>>>> [4] Hanmer, Meredith (1577). The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of
>>>>> the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates,
>>>>> and Evagrius. London. pp. 63. OCLC 55193813. "The opinion which they
>>>>> conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men."
>>>>>
>>>>> [5] Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage.
>>>>> ISBN 0-09-927367-5.
>>>>>
>>>>> [6] In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society,
>>>>> atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more
>>>>> generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely drawn
>>>>> in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses
>>>>> of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in
>>>>> polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term adevism
>>>>> was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in
>>>>> plural deities. Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
>>>>>
>>>>> [7] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
>>>>> University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.
>>>>>
>>>>> [8] Cline, Austin (2006). "What Is the Definition of Atheism?".
>>>>> about.com.http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/
>>>>> definition.htm. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
> >>>
>>>> What part of "atheism is not an ideology" do you not understand?
> >>
>>> The part where real atheists, not preppie infants like yourself,
>>> tell us in well supported peer-reviewed documents, that it IS;
>>
>> Your citations above don't support your claim.
>
>Your claim is refuted by the evidence.
>
>The Atheist ideology
There is no such thing. Marxism-Leninism is an ideology, atheism
isn't.
>was discredited in the 20th century by the
>Atheist regimes, every one of which was a violent, barbaric, cruel
>an oppressive tyranny.
Which again, was no more the fault of atheism than the Bush regime
being the fault of Christianity, or al Qaeda being the fault of Islam.
Take a course in logic, for fuck's sake.
>The facts are well documented and the responsibility id openly
>admitted by the responsible Atheists.
>
>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>
>> Neither does that. Ayn Rand, as fierce an anti-Communist who ever
>> lived, insisted that atheism was an inseparable part of
>> Libertarianism.
>
>Ayn Who? She played no role in the Union of Savage Slaughter and
>Repression, the Great Leap backward or the Cultural Devolution!
Who claimed she did?
>What does an irrelevent counter claim,
Your ability to miss the point is breathtaking. Atheists fall
everywhere along the political spectrum; your implication that
Communist atrocities are somehow a natural political consequence of
atheism is entirely specious. One can be an atheist and a rabid
anti-Communist as well.
>with not a shred of supporting
>evidence to back it up,
That atheism was an integral part of Rand's Libertarian philosophy is
about as well-established as water being wet. What "evidence" do you
need.
> by a discredited Friedmanite nutjob, have to do
>with the crimes against humanity committed by the Atheist regimes of the
>20th century???
Nothing, you clueless imbecile. You managed to miss the point
entirely, as usual.
>Run along lightweight, this is a serious thread for those capable of
>critical historical debate!
Then you don't belong here.
>
>
>>
>>> What should you now do in the face of all that serious scholastic
>>> work you tried to avoid by snipping ALL of it?
>>>
>>>> Try understanding what atheism is (and is not)
>>
>> What a group of atheists political ideologues did,
>
>becomes part of the DEFINING PRAXIS of the MOST INFLUENTIAL period
>in the history of Atheism, short, brutal and a TOTAL FAILURE!
Umm, no. Again, you keep conflating Marxism-Leninism and atheism.
>Despite FORCED Atheist indoctrination, of adults in 're-education'
>camps and children in state schools, people despised the Atheist regimes
>and could not wait for their collapse, upon which millions embraced
>religions they would previously have been tortured, persecuted and
>killed for participating in!
Your grasp of actual history lacks opposable thumbs. Millions of
people practiced all sorts of religions under Communist regimes.
Outright persecution of the religious in the Soviet Union, for
example, was short-lived: once Stalin realized that it was more
practical to use religion as a tool to pacify the public than to
eliminate it, churches were restricted from criticizing the
government, but otherwise largely unmolested (other than
discrimination against Jews, a by-product of historical Russian
anti-Semitism).
>
> > for political reasons, is no more representative
>> of atheists as a group than the Bush Administration
>> is of Christians as a group,
>
>Totally irrelevant busslshit, the USA under Bush was never a Theocracy,
Who said it was? Your ability to miss the point is, again,
breathtaking. Let's break it down very simply for you again, since
you're thicker than the proverbial brick: you can't logically blame
atheism for bad things that atheists do unless you also blame
Christianity and Islam for bad things that Christians and Muslims do.
>the USSR under Lenin was OFFICIALLY, EXPLICITLY, and in PRACTICE, an
>ATHEIST regime.
No, it wasn't. The only *officially* atheist regime in history was
Albania under Enver Hoxha.
> Party members, the only ones allowed to govern, HAD TO
>BE ATHEISTS!
Citation please.
raven1
<tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
>> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
>
>That is an ideology.
How do you figure.
>Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
>"supernatural".
Why?
>It's merely intelligent to be at the very least; agnostic.
Agnostics fall into the category of "non-belief", which is not
synonymous with "disbelief"
>
>But sure, any information aka ramblings of the primates must in
>essence be limited.
>
>Stating that you know that there is no "supernatural" is hubris aka a
>kind of magic.. THE IRONY.
Argument from Ignorance isn't very impressive.
raven1
wrote:
>Yap demonstrated the Atheist fear and hatred for rational discussion:
You wouldn't be able to recognize rationality if we spotted you
"L_GIC" and let you buy a vowel. Your entire position rests on the
simple-minded fallacious argument that "atheists did bad things,
therefore, atheism is bad". No amount of verbal diarrhea on your part
will make your argument any less fallacious. Take a fricking course in
Logic already.
fasgnadh
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 at 18:05:11, Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
> uk.politics.misc :
>
>> On Feb 14, 7:00 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>
>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>
>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>> Century.
>>>
> proof the God exists, but demand *proof* from atheists that God
> *doesn't* exist...
And in which part of your mental psychosis do you imagine that
'demand' is being made ...by voices no one else can hear??? B^p
What I find amusing is that atheists think EVERY thread, no matter what
the subject, can be avoided by trying to shift ground to the ONLY
working script Athei-Sith seem to have.. "Prove God". ..pathetic.
Newsflash.. NOTHING in this thread is about Proving the
Existence or Non-existence of an immaterial entity!!! B^D
It's simply about the HISTORY of atheism.
Why does that topic TERRIFY Atheists? Because there IS
evidence for it.. and so they cannot interminably indulge
themselves in theological disputation as pointless and un-
verifiable as "how many Angels fit on the head of a pin",
or "Prove God".
Clearly you cannot face the TRUTH about Atheist History;
fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>>A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
# >> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
# >> 1: showy
# >> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
# >> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
# >> sophistic <specious reasoning>
# >>
>>
>>
>> It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>
BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Q.E.D
Christopher A. Lee
<tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
>> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
>
>That is an ideology.
That is a lie, and y ou know it.
>Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
>"supernatural".
That is another lie.
>It's merely intelligent to be at the very least; agnostic.
No it's not, liar.
When there is no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
Are YOU agnostic about leptechanus, imbecile?
>But sure, any information aka ramblings of the primates must in
>essence be limited.
What a fucking moron.
>Stating that you know that there is no "supernatural" is hubris aka a
>kind of magic.. THE IRONY.
What a fucking moronb.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUMWy4hqAg
--
Agent 5 users can filter 90% of Usenet spam using
message-id: {google}
Christopher A. Lee
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:58 -0800 (PST), turtoni
><tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
>>> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
>>
>>That is an ideology.
>
>How do you figure.
The imbecile must think not believinh in pixies is an adeology/
>>Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
>>"supernatural".
>
>Why?
Because he thinks it's dtupid not to believe in pixies.
>>It's merely intelligent to be at the very least; agnostic.
>
>Agnostics fall into the category of "non-belief", which is not
>synonymous with "disbelief"
He must think it's intelligent to be agnostic about pixies.
>>
>>But sure, any information aka ramblings of the primates must in
>>essence be limited.
>>
>>Stating that you know that there is no "supernatural" is hubris aka a
>>kind of magic.. THE IRONY.
>
>Argument from Ignorance isn't very impressive.
He was just being stupid.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Yap demonstrated the Atheist fear and hatred for rational discussion:
>>
>> damaging historical review of Atheism, none dealt with the
>> facts and evidence provided, none showed any interest, critical
>> or otherwise, in the history of their ideology, none refuted
>> or rebutted a SINGLE fact, and none knew enough about Atheism
>> to add to the information I have gleaned from a variety of
>> sources.
>>
>> To show clearly the SPURIOUS SOPHISTRY of the Atheist response,
>> which has been ENTIRELY ad hom.. I have highlighted below all
>> the DIRECT QUOTATIONS from reputable scholarly sources...
>>
>> This reveals the falsity of Atheist attempts at PERSONAL CHARACTER
>> ASSASSINATION through personal abuse;
>>
>
> "L_GIC" and let you buy a vowel.
Thanks for demonstrating my point that atheists have a fear and hatred
of rational argument and replace it with ad hom, as you just did,
and lies as you do here:
> Your entire position rests on the simple-minded
> fallacious argument that "atheists did bad things,
> therefore, atheism is bad".
There is no such argument in this post, which is why you snipped it all
rather than refuted any of it.. you are simply making shit up! B^p
I have restored the entire post so that every atheist can pore over it
and discover that the only lying shitpig making the "the simple-minded
fallacious argument that "atheists did bad things, therefore, atheism
is bad" is YOU!
No amount of verbal diarrhoea on your part
will make your argument any less fallacious.
I would recommend you take a fricking course in
Logic but it is clear you lack any aptitude for it.
Thank you for confirming that the "Atheist fear and hatred
for rational discussion is not confined to Yap and Comrade Rosa Klebb!
"Next Yapping Atheist nutjob, afraid of your own HISTORY, please!"
B^D
Giga
<paris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c9a5db1-d4a6-439a...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 6:14 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> parish.matt is so terrified of FACTS and LOGIC, he snips and runs:
>
>
> >> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>
> >> 1: showy
> >> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>
> ><snip rest of idiotic drivel>
>
> Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid by the historical facts,
> clear evidence and Scholarly (rational) argument, that your only
> response is to SNIP it ALL, and RUN AWAY like fearful infants,
> screeching hysterically that ONLY YOUR VIEW matters! B^D
>
> We took a photo of you trying to avoid the issues:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
>
>
>
>
>
> >> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
> >> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
> >> Century.
>
> >> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
> >> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
> >> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
> >> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>
>
> >> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (?????, from the
> >> privative
> >> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
> >> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
> >> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ?????? (asebes) or
> >> "impious".
> >> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
> >> "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ??????? (atheotes),
> >> "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos.
> >> The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and
> >> Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to
> >> the other.[1]
>
> >> In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in
> >> about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one
> >> who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[2] predates atheism in
> >> English, being first attested in about 1571.[3] Atheist as a label of
> >> practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[4]
>
> >> Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth
> >> centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for
> >> polemic
> >> ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of
> >> calling himself an atheist."[5] Atheism was first used to describe a
> >> self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting
> >> disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[6] In the 20th century,
> >> globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to
> >> disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society
> >> to
> >> describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[7] Most recently, there
> >> has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as
> >> the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own
> >> right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities,
> >> though
> >> its mainstream usage has been limited.[8]
>
>
> >> [1] Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922
> >> edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN
> >> 0-89005-201-8. "Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots
> >> and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek;
> >> their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said
> >> atheos and atheotes; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
> >> correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos
> >> was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation;
> >> this
> >> use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do
> >> we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed."
>
>
> >> [3] Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571). The Psalmes of David
> >> and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries. pp. Ep. Ded. 3. "The
> >> Atheistes which say..there is no God." Translated from French.
>
> >> [4] Hanmer, Meredith (1577). The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of
> >> the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius,
> >> Socrates,
> >> and Evagrius. London. pp. 63. OCLC 55193813. "The opinion which they
> >> conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men."
>
>
> >> [6] In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society,
> >> atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more
> >> generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely
> >> drawn
> >> in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses
> >> of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in
> >> polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term
> >> adevism
> >> was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in
> >> plural deities. Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia
> >> Britannica.
>
> >> [7] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
>
> >> definition.htm. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
>
> > What part of "atheism is not an ideology" do you not understand?
>
> The part where real atheists, not preppie infants like yourself,
> tell us in well supported peer-reviewed documents, that it IS;
>
> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> work you tried to avoid by snipping ALL of it?
>
> > Try understanding what atheism is (and is not)
>
> to Athei-Sith BELIEFS, you cannot run away from it by pushing your
> fat head further up your even fatter arse! B^]
>
> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...
> all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" - Stalin
> - E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,
> Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
>
> but of the entire State apparatus;
>
> The Atheist leadership's policies were implemented under
> the red Terror, via gulags and executions, the use of
> every arm of the state for anti-religious propaganda
> and the forced indoctrination of CHILDREN! B^[
>
> "We do not fight against believers and not even clergymen.
> WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him."
> -Vechernaia Moskva, a Soviet newspaper
>
> "Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth,
> and God from Heaven!" (early Soviet slogan)
>
> "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
> - Daniel Peris,
> "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
> Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
>
> "Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden"
>
> "Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
> In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
> 3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
> Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
> in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
> In 1922, the Solovki Camp of Special Purpose, the first Russian
> concentration camp was established in the Solovki Islands in the White
> Sea"
>
> John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State
> (Boston: Little Brown, 1953)
>
> #http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
> #
> # "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
> # by a government, typically by active suppression of
> # religious freedom and practice."
> # - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
> # Characteristics and Consequences,
> # David Kowalewski,
> # Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,
> #
> #
> # "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia's Buddhist religion:
> # monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
> # Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
> # other religious sentiments were often killed.
> # ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
> # and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
> # and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
> # starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
> # prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
> # instead of the family.
> #
> # About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
> # were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot's regime."
> # - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
> #
> # The Cambodian
> Genocide:http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millo...
>
> #
> # "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
> # regarded by the regime as social parasites,
> # were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
> # Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
> # destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
> # Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
> # rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
> # or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
> # were often killed.
> #
> # The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
> # persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
> # Phnom Penh was completely razed.
> #
> # The Khmer Rouge forced ...
>
> read more »
Why are you so obsessed with Stalin and Lenin? Maybe they were
atheists, but that doesn't mean atheism was responsible for their
actions. There is no atheist doctrine or teaching they could follow
that would lead to their actions, because no such doctrines exist!
Atheism is the LACK of religious belief, it is not a belief system in
itself. Get that through your head before you resume your never-
ending crusade against intellectual honesty. As Yap said, you're
barking up the wrong tree.
The only 'lack of beleif' that would be possible would be if you had never
even considered the question of Gods existence. If you have considered and
decided 'it probably doesn't exist' then this, though negative, is a beleif
state. Just as I beleive I am not on Mars at the moment.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
>> 1: showy
>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>
>>
>>
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>
>
"Thanks for demonstrating my point that atheists have a fear
and hatred of rational argument and replace it with ad hom,
as you just did,and lies as you do here: "
> Not believing in deities
> is no more an ideology than not believing in
> leprechauns.
I have never seen a group of 'non believers in Leprechauns'
form a group, raise funds to proselytise a range of unsubstantiated
beliefs and paste that ideology on buses!!! B^D
"There are no Leprechauns, so stop worrying and be happy!"
The idea that Atheists think non-belief in anything, including
Leprechauns, would stop people from worrying and cause them to be happy
is hilarious, one of the silliest ideologies ever to be voiced!!!
After that demonstration of a group with a shared ideology
touting it in books and advertisements, it makes the Atheist
regimes of the 20th century, who also relied on fraud and
deception in their propaganda, much more intelligible to
those who don't know history, and simply place blind
faith in what Atheists FALSELY ASSERT about themselves!
> Atheists span the ideological spectrum from far left to
> far right;
So now you claim that Atheists
People are tired of the bullshit claims atheists make
about themselves which are diametrically contradicted by
the historical reality, which they ignore because they
can't face it.
> the only thing we all have in common is that we don't
> believe in "god/s"
you don't think? breathe? have sex? have sexual organs? use logic?
That explains a lot! Mostly that you are an irrational
nutjob who believes that your idiosyncratic personal meaning
trumps the historical reality.. despite your lack of evidence
that it does and inability to refute all the evidence that it doesn't;
http://sundials.org/about/humptyg.gif
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
in a rather scornful tone,'
it means just what I choose it to mean,
neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice,
'whether you can make words mean so
many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty,
'which is to be master - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything;
so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs:
they're the proudest - adjectives you can do
anything with, but not verbs - however,
I can manage the whole lot of them!
Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, '
what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,'
said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased.
'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough
of that subject, and it would be just as well if
you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I
suppose you don't mean to stop here all the
rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,'
Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,'
said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
>> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
>>
>> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative
>> ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
>> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
>> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
>> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
>> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
>> "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs),
>> atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
--
raven1
wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>> Yap demonstrated the Atheist fear and hatred for rational discussion:
>>>
>>> Of all the atheist posters who responded to this clearly
>>> damaging historical review of Atheism, none dealt with the
>>> facts and evidence provided, none showed any interest, critical
>>> or otherwise, in the history of their ideology, none refuted
>>> or rebutted a SINGLE fact, and none knew enough about Atheism
>>> to add to the information I have gleaned from a variety of
>>> sources.
>>>
>>> To show clearly the SPURIOUS SOPHISTRY of the Atheist response,
>>> which has been ENTIRELY ad hom.. I have highlighted below all
>>> the DIRECT QUOTATIONS from reputable scholarly sources...
>>>
>>> This reveals the falsity of Atheist attempts at PERSONAL CHARACTER
>>> ASSASSINATION through personal abuse;
>>>
> >
> > You wouldn't be able to recognize rationality if we spotted you
> > "L_GIC" and let you buy a vowel.
>
>Thanks for demonstrating my point that atheists have a fear and hatred
>of rational argument and replace it with ad hom, as you just did,
>and lies as you do here:
No, actually, your response demonstrates my point rather lucidly. Nice
"own goal".
>
> > Your entire position rests on the simple-minded
> > fallacious argument that "atheists did bad things,
> > therefore, atheism is bad".
>
>
>There is no such argument in this post,
Really? What about this, you lying sack of shit:
raven1
wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>
>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>
>>> "specious \?sp?-sh?s\
>>> 1: showy
>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>> Century.
>>>
>>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>>
> >
> > It has become apparent that you are a completely delusional idiot.
>
>"Thanks for demonstrating my point that atheists have a fear
>and hatred of rational argument and replace it with ad hom,
>as you just did,and lies as you do here: "
>
> > Not believing in deities
> > is no more an ideology than not believing in
> > leprechauns.
>
>I have never seen a group of 'non believers in Leprechauns'
>form a group, raise funds to proselytise a range of unsubstantiated
>beliefs and paste that ideology on buses!!! B^D
Probably because believers in Leprechauns don't shove their beliefs
down everyone else's throat, or try to legislate their beliefs.
>"There are no Leprechauns, so stop worrying and be happy!"
>
>The idea that Atheists think non-belief in anything, including
>Leprechauns, would stop people from worrying and cause them to be happy
>is hilarious, one of the silliest ideologies ever to be voiced!!!
The idea that the above is an ideology is too stupid for words.
>After that demonstration of a group with a shared ideology
>touting it in books and advertisements, it makes the Atheist
>regimes of the 20th century, who also relied on fraud and
>deception in their propaganda, much more intelligible to
>those who don't know history, and simply place blind
>faith in what Atheists FALSELY ASSERT about themselves!
Still with the generalization fallacy, I see.
> > Atheists span the ideological spectrum from far left to
> > far right;
>
>So now you claim that Atheists
That atheists what?
>People are tired of the bullshit claims atheists make
>about themselves which are diametrically contradicted by
>the historical reality, which they ignore because they
>can't face it.
Again, you're generalizing. Are all Muslims al Qaeda terrorists?
>
> > the only thing we all have in common is that we don't
> > believe in "god/s"
>
>you don't think? breathe? have sex? have sexual organs? use logic?
If you're going to be so idiotically pedantic, there's not much point
in continuing this discussion, but to clarify, anyone who isn't being
deliberately dishonest (or a totally annoying prat), can parse the
above sentence for content to realize that I was referring to specific
philosophical positions, not characteristics that all humans share.
(Although I'm far from certain that you ever fall into the categories
of thinking or using logic).
>That explains a lot! Mostly that you are an irrational
>nutjob who believes that your idiosyncratic personal meaning
>trumps the historical reality.. despite your lack of evidence
>that it does and inability to refute all the evidence that it doesn't;
>
>http://sundials.org/about/humptyg.gif
>
> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
> in a rather scornful tone,'
> it means just what I choose it to mean,
> neither more nor less.'
Your role model, I see.
>>> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (?????, from the privative
>>> ?- + ???? "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
>>> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
>>> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
>>> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ?????? (aseb?s) or "impious".
>>> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
>>> "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ??????? (atheot?s),
>>> atheos and atheot?s; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
fasgnadh
> Get a life. Atheists seem to want to spend their life time purging
> their minds of a belief in gods. It's as if they had no trust in
> themselves, and wake up with the mantra every morning, open the
> window
> and shout out into the streets for all to hear:
>
> " I don't believe in God!"
>
it reminds me of uber-Gays, who define themselves entirely
by their sexuality and thus, on first meeting you declare
their name and their sexual preference...
"Hi, I'm Chris lee and I'm a bull dyke Lesbian!"
You feel like saying "How nice for you" and edging away
in the hope of finding an accountant to chat to.
> The rest of us simply just get on with life and make a cup of tea.
Apparently, those of the Atheist persuasion see it as their
Defining attribute.
Can you imagine a cocktail party if everyone vocalised their
non-beliefs as tiresomely as Atheists do:
"Hi I'm Raven and I don't believe in Leprechauns"
"Hello, I'm Yap and I don't believe in reason"
" G'day I'm Fran and i don't believe in honesty"...
'Hi I'm fasgnadh and I don't believe atheism is rational."
> Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists,
> and among the most intolerant.
> Their overall attitude is quite sickenly dangerous.
>
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
They are full of hatred and bitter bile, which historically has
exploded into terror, torture, persecution and mass murder in
EVERY atheist regime!
> Saying that "I don't believe in God or gods" is no evidence for
> the proof of whether God or gods exist or not. It is simply an
> opinion, and nothing more.
Indeed, the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
expressed it's finding on Atheist Beliefs thus:
MERE OPINIONS - CAN'T BE SUBSTANTIATED!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7842769.stm
An atheist UK bus campaign which uses the slogan
"There's probably no God, So Don't Worry, Be Happy"
has been found by the Advertising Standards Authority
to be OPINIONS which cannot be objectively substantiated!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHA
"the ASA ruled the adverts were an expression of the advertiser's
opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective
substantiation."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
> Atheists can no more prove what they say is True than anyone can
> absolutely say "one plus one equals two" is always true.
>
> Two is only mathematically defined as the successor of one in the
> closed system of logcal arithmetic. That may not apply in reality
> over
> all time and everywhere.
>
Christopher A. Lee
The deliberately nasty serioal liar knows this, and was just being an
asshole for the sake of it.
>>"There are no Leprechauns, so stop worrying and be happy!"
>>
>>The idea that Atheists think non-belief in anything, including
>>Leprechauns, would stop people from worrying and cause them to be happy
>>is hilarious, one of the silliest ideologies ever to be voiced!!!
>
>The idea that the above is an ideology is too stupid for words.
We've seen this imbecile before.
>>After that demonstration of a group with a shared ideology
>>touting it in books and advertisements, it makes the Atheist
>>regimes of the 20th century, who also relied on fraud and
>>deception in their propaganda, much more intelligible to
>>those who don't know history, and simply place blind
>>faith in what Atheists FALSELY ASSERT about themselves!
>
>Still with the generalization fallacy, I see.
The liar knows this.
>> > Atheists span the ideological spectrum from far left to
>> > far right;
>>
>>So now you claim that Atheists
>
>That atheists what?
>
>>People are tired of the bullshit claims atheists make
>>about themselves which are diametrically contradicted by
>>the historical reality, which they ignore because they
>>can't face it.
What "bullshit claims" is the serial liar pretending atheists "make
about themselves"?
>Again, you're generalizing. Are all Muslims al Qaeda terrorists?
>
>>
>> > the only thing we all have in common is that we don't
>> > believe in "god/s"
>>
>>you don't think? breathe? have sex? have sexual organs? use logic?
>
>If you're going to be so idiotically pedantic, there's not much point
>in continuing this discussion, but to clarify, anyone who isn't being
>deliberately dishonest (or a totally annoying prat), can parse the
>above sentence for content to realize that I was referring to specific
>philosophical positions, not characteristics that all humans share.
>(Although I'm far from certain that you ever fall into the categories
>of thinking or using logic).
It's deliberate.
>>That explains a lot! Mostly that you are an irrational
>>nutjob who believes that your idiosyncratic personal meaning
>>trumps the historical reality.. despite your lack of evidence
>>that it does and inability to refute all the evidence that it doesn't;
>>
>>http://sundials.org/about/humptyg.gif
>>
>> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
>> in a rather scornful tone,'
>> it means just what I choose it to mean,
>> neither more nor less.'
>
>Your role model, I see.
>
>>
>> 'The question is,' said Alice,
>> 'whether you can make words mean so
>> many different things.'
Like the imbecile who redefines "ideology" so he can lie about atheism
being one.
>> 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty,
>> 'which is to be master - that's all.'
>>
>> Alice was too much puzzled to say anything;
>> so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
>> 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs:
>> they're the proudest - adjectives you can do
>> anything with, but not verbs - however,
>> I can manage the whole lot of them!
>> Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
>>
>> 'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, '
>> what that means?'
>>
>> 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,'
>> said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased.
>> 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough
>> of that subject, and it would be just as well if
>> you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I
>> suppose you don't mean to stop here all the
>> rest of your life.'
>>
>> 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,'
>> Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
>>
>> 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,'
>> said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
This is the imbecile who has redefined words like atheist and
ideology.
Alang
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 at 18:05:11, Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>uk.politics.misc :
>
>>On Feb 14, 7:00 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>
>>> "specious \0 >> 1: showy
>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>
>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>> Century.
>>>
>What I find amusing is that theists consider their faith to be enough
>proof the God exists, but demand *proof* from atheists that God
>*doesn't* exist...
Just keep repeating
"atheist is a word coined by the deluded to describe those who don't
share their delusion"
After all if it were not for the delusional the word would never have
been invented.
Trance Gemini
> Just keep repeating
> "theist is a word coined by the deluded to describe those who don't
> share their delusion"
>
> After all if it were not for the delusional the word would never have
> been invented.
I agree.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alang
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 10:22 am, Alang <inva...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>> Just keep repeating
>> "Atheist is a word coined by the deluded to describe those who don't
>> share their delusion"
>>
>> After all if it were not for the delusional the word would never have
>> been invented.
>
>I agree.
>
Easy
Trance Gemini
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 07:35:56 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
> >On Feb 14, 10:22 am, Alang <inva...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Just keep repeating
> >> share their delusion"
>
> >> After all if it were not for the delusional the word would never have
> >> been invented.
>
> >I agree.
>
> Easy
Let me fix it for you again. You keep adding this extraneous "a".
There. Better. Now we're back to it making sense again.
fasgnadh
Following the incredible popularity of "A Brief History of Atheism -
Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious" I have been encouraged to
a) note how many atheists are completely ignorant of their history
b) note how this ignorance is often accompanied by fear and anger
at those who are aware of the history of Atheism, especially it's
dark past.
c) note how utterly Comrade Rosa Klebb has been ignored by the
other Atheists and
b) to complete the remaining chapters:
A Brief History of Atheism -
Chapter 2 "The long climb from oblivion to irrelevance"
The long evolutionary climb of mankind from primordial mud
(Biblical star 'dust' plus the Water of Life ;-) to Ancient
history shows no signs of atheism, but a multitude of evidence
for religious beliefs, and our earliest historical relics abound
with religious references.
So, while considerable proof of religion being a part of that
evolutionary progress exists. None exists for Atheism in pre-history.
That was the hard part. Like learning to walk and talk for human
infants, the latter being our most extraordinary intellectual
accomplishment, and one performed without formal education! 8^o
Since then, progress has been easier and accelerated, allowing the
formation of luxuries, including a wide variety of both useful and
dangerous technologies, products and ideas.
A modern supermarket for example is full of 'food' of very little
nutritional value, packed with sugar and fat, and thus we have an
epidemic of diabetes and obesity. Similarly in the intellectual
arena we have a proliferation of untested and unprovable junk
ideologies, and today I continue my examination of one of them;
Understanding Atheism - the poor cousin of Nihilism;
“Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
"A variety of categories have been proposed to try to
distinguish the different forms of atheism."
Range
Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism
arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of
words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions
of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's
applicability. In contexts where theism is defined as the belief in a
singular personal god, for example, people who believe in a variety of
other deities have been classified as atheists, including deists (such
as Thomas Paine. Conversely, the ancient Romans accused Christians of
being atheists for not worshipping the pagan deities. In the 20th
century this view has fallen into disfavor as theism has come to be
understood as encompassing belief in any divinity."[1]
"Atheism is most contrasted with agnosticism when the definition of
atheism used is the assertion that deities do not exist. The allocation
of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an
independent philosophical view."[2]
"With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may
counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any
spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of
Hinduism and Buddhism."[3]
Implicit vs. explicit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg
"Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a
person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. As
noted in the introduction above, atheism has also been defined as
synonymous with any type of non-theism, thereby including as atheists
anyone without a belief in the existence of at least one deity. It has
been contended that this broad definition includes newborns and other
people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772,
Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no
idea of God."[4] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The
man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not
believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the
conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still
unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in
god qualifies him as an atheist."[5] Smith coined the term implicit
atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious
rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common
definition of conscious disbelief.
In Western civilization, the view that children are born atheist is
relatively recent. Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so
universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of
true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism —the
notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was
the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[6] There is a
position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times
of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there
are no atheists in foxholes." Some proponents of this view claim that
the anthropological benefit of religion is that religious faith enables
humans to endure hardships better (cf.opium of the people Karl Marx,
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right,
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher February, 1844). Some atheists emphasize
the fact that there have been examples to the contrary, among them
examples of literal "atheists in foxholes."[7]
Strong vs. weak
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[8], Michael Martin[9], and William L.
Rowe[10] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative)
atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not
exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to
this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a
strong atheist.[11] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent;
however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been
used in the philosophical literature[8] and (in a slightly different
sense) in Catholic apologetics.[12] Under this demarcation of atheism,
most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak
atheism,[9] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,
which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an
equal conviction.[13] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or
against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that
atheism requires a leap of faith.[14] Common atheist responses to this
argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much
disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[15] and that the
unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of
either possibility.[16] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues
that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself,
even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised
philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we
know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and
formal logic."[17] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as
Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist
positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[18]
As mentioned above, the terms negative and positive have been used in
philosophical literature in a similar manner to the terms weak and
strong. However, the book Positive Atheism by Gora, first published in
1972, introduced an alternative use for the phrase.[19] Having grown up
in a hierarchical system with a religious basis, Gora called for a
secular India and suggested guidelines for a positive atheist
philosophy, meaning one that promotes positive values.[20] Positive
atheism entails such things as a being morally upright, showing an
understanding that religious people have reasons to believe, not
proselytising or lecturing others about atheism, and defending oneself
with truthfulness instead of aiming to 'win' any confrontations with
outspoken critics."
Footnotes:
[1] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism.
Cambridge University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.
[2] Zdybicka, Zofia J. (2005), "Atheism", in Maryniarczyk, Andrzej,
Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1, Polish Thomas Aquinas
Association p 20
[3] Britannica (1992). "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs".
Encyclopædia Britannica 1: 666. 0852294735.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38265/atheism.
Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
[4] d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). Good Sense.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7319.
Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
[5] Smith, George H. (1979), Atheism: The Case Against God, Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus, ISBN 0-87975-124-X p14
[6] Cudworth, Ralph (1678). The True Intellectual System of the
Universe: the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy
of atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated.
[7] Lowder, Jeffery Jay (1997). "Atheism and Society".
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/society.html.
Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
[8] Flew, Antony. "The Presumption of Atheism". The Presumption of
Atheism and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and
Immortality. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1976. pp 14ff.
[9] Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism.
Cambridge University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.
[10] Rowe, William L. "Atheism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Edward Craig (editor). Routledge: June 1998.
ISBN 0415187060. 530-534.
[11] Cline, Austin (2006). "Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism:
What's the Difference?". about.com.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm.
Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
[12] Maritain, Jacques (July 1949). "On the Meaning of Contemporary
Atheism". The Review of Politics 11 (3): 267–280.
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm.
[13] Kenny, Anthony (2006). "Why I Am Not an Atheist". What I believe.
Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-8971-0. "The true default position is
neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism … a claim to knowledge
needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed."
[14] Freking, Ken (2005-01-23). "Atheists take bigger leap of faith than
'believers'". Columbia Daily Tribune.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jan/20050123Comm008.asp.
Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
[15] Baggini 2003, pp. 30–34. "Who seriously claims we should say 'I
neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope is a robot', or
'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turn me
into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any
good reasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly
disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement."
[16] Baggini 2003, p. 22. "A lack of proof is no grounds for the
suspension of belief. This is because when we have a lack of
absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one
explanation which is far superior to the alternatives."
[17] Smart, J.C.C. (2004-03-09). "Atheism and Agnosticism".
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/.
Retrieved on 2007-04-12.
[18] Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe.
1678. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Bantam Books: 2006,
p. 50. (ISBN 0-618-68000-4)
[19] Rao, Goparaju (1972). Positive Atheism. Vijayawada, India:
Atheist Centre, Patamata, Vijayawada, India.
[20] Walker, Cliff. "The Philosophy of Positive Atheism".
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH.
Retrieved on 2008-11-19.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
fasgnadh wrote:
>
> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>
> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
> 1: showy
> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>
>
>
> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
> Century.
>
> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>
> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
>
> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative
> ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
> "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs),
> atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness
John Baker
wrote:
An adult who still hasn't outgrown imaginary friends has no room to
call anyone else delusional, Skippy.
>
>After all if it were not for the delusional the word would never have
>been invented.
Well, that much is true. But not in the way you probably mean.
turtoni
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:58 -0800 (PST), turtoni
>
> >On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
> >> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
>
> >That is an ideology.
>
> How do you figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
> >Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
> >"supernatural".
>
> Why?
Because there will always be unusual experiences that lack a
scientific explanation.
Even our very consciousness appears to work like magic.
> >It's merely intelligent to be at the very least; agnostic.
>
> Agnostics fall into the category of "non-belief", which is not
> synonymous with "disbelief"
"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain
claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology,
afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate
reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism,
inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often mistakenly put
forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics
> >But sure, any information aka ramblings of the primates must in
> >essence be limited.
>
> >Stating that you know that there is no "supernatural" is hubris aka a
> >kind of magic.. THE IRONY.
>
> Argument from Ignorance isn't very impressive.
Indeed. "There is no god(s)" isn't very impressive.
Christopher A. Lee
<tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 7:42 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:58 -0800 (PST), turtoni
>>
>> <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>> >On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> However, you still fail to comprehend that "atheism" is not an ideology,
>> >> but merely a non-believe in a non-existent supernatural being.
>>
>> >That is an ideology.
>>
>> How do you figure.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Is its exact equiovalent of not believing in pixies an ideology,
imbecile?
>> >Philosophically it's "merely" stupid to non-believe in the
>> >"supernatural".
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because there will always be unusual experiences that lack a
>scientific explanation.
So your pretend friend is the explanation?
>Even our very consciousness appears to work like magic.
Only to a retard.
>> >It's merely intelligent to be at the very least; agnostic.
>>
>> Agnostics fall into the category of "non-belief", which is not
>> synonymous with "disbelief"
>
>"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain
>claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology,
>afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate
>reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism,
>inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often mistakenly put
>forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism."
So what?
People who get it wrong also get atheism wrong.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics
>
>> >But sure, any information aka ramblings of the primates must in
>> >essence be limited.
>>
>> >Stating that you know that there is no "supernatural" is hubris aka a
>> >kind of magic.. THE IRONY.
>>
>> Argument from Ignorance isn't very impressive.
>
>Indeed. "There is no god(s)" isn't very impressive.
It's no different than "there ain't no Santa Claus", imbecile.
turtoni
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm
"Enfant Provocateur likes to stir up trouble because...because,
well...just because. This species of Flame Warrior is almost always
young and male - it could be just a hormone thing."
Christopher A. Lee
So why do you, imbecile?
turtoni
> So why do you, imbecile?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger_management
"In modern society, anger is viewed as an immature or uncivilized
response to frustration, threat, violation, or loss. Conversely,
keeping calm, coolheaded, or turning the other cheek is considered
more socially acceptable. This conditioning can cause inappropriate
expressions of anger such as uncontrolled violent outbursts,
misdirected anger or repressing all feelings of anger when it would be
an appropriate response to the situation. Also, anger that is
constantly “bottled up” can lead to persistent violent thoughts or
actions, nightmares and even physical symptoms. Anger can also
aggravate an already present mental health problem such as clinical
depression.
Many people believe that depression is in fact anger turned inwards.
This is because many depressed people react to stress by turning their
anger inward as a response to physical or mental abuse or neglect from
parents or others. One secondary effect of the depression sufferer's
denial of anger is that their interpersonal relationships are often
unhappy and unhealthy.
Another side-effect of anger is that it can fuel obsessions, phobias,
addictions and manic tendencies. Many people who are not able to
express their anger will let it out in some sort of furious activity
which can result in clinical depression or even bipolar disorder.
Anger can also fan the flames of paranoia and prejudice, even in
normal, everyday situations. People tend to express their anger either
passively or aggressively through the fight-or-flight response. The
passive "flight" response is repression and denial of anger for
safety. However, aggressive behavior is associated with the "fight"
response and the use of the verbal and physical power of anger to
abuse and hurt others."
Sanity's Little Helper
So don't incite it.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"A fool hath said in his heart: "There is no God"". Wise men and women say
it out loud.
Not authentic without this signature.
Christopher A. Lee
<tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 6:09 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> So why do you, imbecile?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger_management
>
>"In modern society, anger is viewed as an immature or uncivilized
>response to frustration, threat, violation, or loss. Conversely,
>keeping calm, coolheaded, or turning the other cheek is considered
>more socially acceptable. This conditioning can cause inappropriate
>expressions of anger such as uncontrolled violent outbursts,
>misdirected anger or repressing all feelings of anger when it would be
>an appropriate response to the situation. Also, anger that is
>constantly “bottled up” can lead to persistent violent thoughts or
>actions, nightmares and even physical symptoms. Anger can also
>aggravate an already present mental health problem such as clinical
>depression.
So what?
>Many people believe that depression is in fact anger turned inwards.
>This is because many depressed people react to stress by turning their
>anger inward as a response to physical or mental abuse or neglect from
>parents or others. One secondary effect of the depression sufferer's
>denial of anger is that their interpersonal relationships are often
>unhappy and unhealthy.
So what?
>Another side-effect of anger is that it can fuel obsessions, phobias,
>addictions and manic tendencies. Many people who are not able to
>express their anger will let it out in some sort of furious activity
>which can result in clinical depression or even bipolar disorder.
>Anger can also fan the flames of paranoia and prejudice, even in
>normal, everyday situations. People tend to express their anger either
>passively or aggressively through the fight-or-flight response. The
>passive "flight" response is repression and denial of anger for
>safety. However, aggressive behavior is associated with the "fight"
>response and the use of the verbal and physical power of anger to
>abuse and hurt others."
Irrelevant.
What has any of this got to do with treating an imbecile who attacks
what he is ignorant about, for what he is?
Christopher A. Lee
What I don't understand is why imbeciles like this misrepresent the
reaction.
There was no anger, obsession, or anything else.
Just treating an imbecile as an imbecile for his repeated
misrepresentations.
Did you notice that he deleted what got got his described as the
imbecile he showed himself?
These trolls always give themselves away.
abelard
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
it is interesting to watch you and your fellow inmates
seeking reassurance one from another
why are you lot so insecure?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Why are you such a personally nasty liar?
turtoni
> It is an ancient turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net>, and he posteth:
Got cult?
Check.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/xenophobe.htm
"Xenophobe is usually a long-term discussion forum participant and he
thinks of the forum as his private compound. Xenophobe regards new
forum arrivals as mentally deficient and perhaps even having criminal
tendencies, and they are invariably approached with suspicion and
condescension. Xenophobe will mount a furious attack if a Newbie has
the temerity to make critical observations about the forum's social
dynamics, or questions its prevailing opinions."
Christopher A. Lee
<tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 6:17 pm, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>> It is an ancient turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net>, and he posteth:
>>
>> > On Feb 14, 6:09 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >> So why do you, imbecile?
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger_management
>>
>> > "In modern society, anger is viewed as an immature or uncivilized
>> > response to frustration, threat, violation, or loss. Conversely,
>> > keeping calm, coolheaded, or turning the other cheek is considered
>> > more socially acceptable. This conditioning can cause inappropriate
>> > expressions of anger such as uncontrolled violent outbursts,
>> > misdirected anger or repressing all feelings of anger when it would be
>> > an appropriate response to the situation. Also, anger that is
>> > constantly ´bottled upĄ can lead to persistent violent thoughts or
Which has nothing to do with the reaction to your deliberate
misrepresentation, serial liar.
turtoni
> Which has nothing to do with the reaction to your deliberate
> misrepresentation, serial liar.
fasgnadh
>>> <snip another redux of the troll's rant>
Hi Comrade Klebb, can you take a minute from tearing the
wings off butterflies long enough to get a newsflash ? B^)
It's in regard to your clarion call to all your
Athei-Sith Komrades that they ignore valid topics for
discussion, and follow your directive to implement NewSpeak
# "The underlying theory of NewSpeak is that if something can't
# be said, then it can't be thought."
# This suits the totalitarian
# regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative
# thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest
# edition of NewSpeak — or speech impossible by removing
# any words or possible constructs which describe the
# ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on."
As an old commie bitch, you understand the tactic well,
and so with nothing by way of ARGUMENT but your vile
slander and personal Character assassination (which constitutes
100% of your pathetic posts) you called for Atheists to respond
to discussion in discussion groups by refusing to discuss;
>>> troll.
>>> lies and misrepresents
>>> odious
It was principally the writings of experts on the topic
of atheist history!? 8^o and Klebb dismisses all of it
without any reason!!?
Anti-intellectualism lies at the heart of the Dictatorship
of the Proletariat, and the Terror, which Fran has remained
committed to long after other Stalinists have recanted.
And she knows my posts are incredibly effective in
inspiring lively and vigorous debate, which she and the Party HATE;
>>> He knows that this will provoke further responses
#############################################################
# #
# Dear Comrade Klebb, the party is most disappointed with #
# the reaction of the Athei-Sith Stooges to your latest #
# directive that they would be advised not to read, let #
# alone debate with Emmanual fasgnadh Goldstein [curses, #
# teeth gnashing]. It has come to our attention that far #
# from ignoring the Heretic, they have ignored YOU, and #
# that thread is going GANGBUSTERS with 100 posts on it's #
# first DAY! 8^o #
# As it is clear that not even the Atheist tools believe #
# you have any residual credibility that you use your #
# poison-laden Switch-blade shoes to kick yourself in the #
# arse, about as hard as Fasgnadh has been doing these #
# months and years, you failed, venomous, commie bitch! #
# #
# - Grand Poohbah, Ministry of Trooth #
# #
#############################################################
This is the heart of Fran's bitter bile, the sad old commie
bitch is gnashing her gums in impotent rage that the atheists
are JUST NOT LISTENING to the discredited Commie thugs any more!
The tragic marriage of Atheism and Communism in the Great Utopian
Catastrophes of the 20th Century ended in fractious DIVORCE after
they ATE THEIR OWN CHILDREN!!!!!! 8^o
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
==> Terror, torture, persecution and the slaughter of 40,000,000
But the post Fran wanted to silence, to shut down debate on, was not
about this Dark Age of Atheism, but about it's beginnings, and even
that early stage of Atheist obscurity and irrelevance was like Hollywood
Holy Water splashed on a screeching Vampire;
>>> Taking his content at its prima facie value cannot shed new light on
>>> any matter of importance.
Classic NewSpeak.. don't read it, it will destroy your mind! B^D
As in the Atheist tyrannies, Fran wants NO DISCUSSION, only the
Orthodox Party view
Instead we get denunciation of Emmanuel Goldstein and the
enemies of Oceania;
>>> troll
>>> save your energy
>>> they post as the starting point for discussion
>>> troll
>>> yammer away
>>> impressing
>>> nobody whose opinion would be worth winning
>>> seriously annoying
>>>
"Duckspeak: a NewSpeak term meaning literally to quack
like a duck or to speak without thinking.
Duckspeak can be either good or "ungood" (bad),
depending on who is speaking, and whether
what they are saying is in following with
the ideals of Big Brother. To speak rubbish and lies
may be ungood, but to speak rubbish and lies for the
good of "The Party" may be good. In the appendix to
1984, Orwell explains:
"Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech
issue from the larynx without involving the higher
brain centres at all."
duckspeak is ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the
opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones,
it implied nothing but praise."
e.g. Fran is a doubleplusgood duckspeaker
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAAA
>>> You on the other hand, will stand a better chance of
>>> enjoying your sojourns here and certainly waste less time.
>>>
>>> Fran
Fran, it appears YOU are the sad old retro throwback who is
wasting her time, and ours..
here is the last braindead Athei-Sith, wrap him up and
take him back to your web for supper....
>> Can you tell me how to plonk him?
>> I'm new here and don't know how
Easy, do what Fran and all the intellectually defective
Athei-Sith do when confronted by HISTORICAL REALITY;
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
I will leave you in the capable claws of Comrade Klebb
who will instruct you one the details of cranium insertion..
SHE'S THE EXPERT!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA
>
> If you are using the google interface there is no capacity to "plonk"
> anyone. Just note him and move on.
>
> If you are using a dedicated newsreader there are functions to cease
> gathering threads or posts from nominated persons.
>
> I use google, but as soon as I see "fasgnadh" or something in his
> native format I simply move on.
This post was a great example of that, you lying hypocritical bitch!
B^D
You are a Shitsplatter and RUN, ad hom slanderer, nothing more.
> Fran
fasgnadh
Ah, Wisdom in Usenet, how very rare!
ABUSE
"When a simpleton abused him,
Buddha listened to him in silence, but when the man had
finished asked him, "Son, if a man declined to accept a
present offered to him, to whom would it belong?"
The man answered "To him who offered it."
"My son," Buddha said, "I decline to accept your abuse.
Keep it for yourself."
- Will Durant The Story of Civilization.
fasgnadh
B^D
Touche!
>
>> --
>> David Silverman
>> aa #2208
>> Defender of Civilisation
>> "A fool hath said in his heart: "There is no God"". Wise men and women say
>> it out loud.
fasgnadh
Ah Python, still funny even without drugs!
Thanks for the most amusing branch in the thread!
Enjoying your posts; rare wit, shining intelligence, admirable
restraint and good humour.
Shalom and Salaam
"He is all pine and I am apple orchard."
--
511
The clear bead at the centre changes everything.
There are no edges to my loving now.
I've heard it said there's a window that opens
from one mind to another,
but if there's no wall, there's no need
for fitting the window, or the latch.
Jalal'u'din Rumi (1207 – 1273)
MENDING WALL
Robert Frost
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
turtoni
> turtoni wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 7:03 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> Which has nothing to do with the reaction to your deliberate
> >> misrepresentation, serial liar.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
>
> Ah Python, still funny even without drugs!
>
> Thanks for the most amusing branch in the thread!
>
> Enjoying your posts; rare wit, shining intelligence, admirable
> restraint and good humour.
Ditto. You obviously do not deserve such utter out and out hatred
dished out by *some* of the xenophobe's in *their* Church of the
Atheism.
Anyways I'd describe myself as a philosphical humanist.
http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html
I'd imagine it would be fair to say that some atheists have literally
been abused by "religion"..
We all have our stories..
And then there's always the usenet flame warriors:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm
Funny stuff.
fasgnadh
> On Feb 14, 7:20 pm, Ivan Grozny <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Some of rudest people on the planet seem to be Atheists, and among
>> the most intolerant.
>
> Fasgnadh isn't an atheist!
and thus has never been as rude as Chris lee;
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
> He will be most annoyed by your accusation.
Who cares, truth is a defence in law suits, and he can go
fuck himself with ...
> Mark.
or any other inanimate object
fasgnadh
> "DVH" pointed out the illogic of Hyjacks straw man argument:
>> "Paul Hyjack" <p...@invalid.invalid> tried an invalid ground shift
>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 at 18:05:11, Yap got erased by his atheist mate
>>> uk.politics.misc :
>>>
>>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>>>
Before the Athei-Sith hordes scrambled into damage control,
there was a serious, substantive issue here.. the Subject
header made clear what it was and it was restated in the
title... a HISTORY of ATHEISM.
The stunning observation re Atheist reaction shows
Athei-Sith are not only IGNORANT of their history, but
antagonistic to it. It drives them into impotent fury,
vicious personal ad hom assaults, and desperate attempts
to change the subject.. let us observe one of these
tactics in action, The Atheist Two-Step, and then follow
it's deployment throughout the thread!
>>>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>>>
>>>>> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
>>>>> 1: showy
>>>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>>>> Century.
>>>>>
The first stage in the Atheist two-Step is to SideStep all the
issues, ignore the facts, put on the ideological blinkers, snip
and ignore the Historical Reality and then, step two, insert a
scripted response.. some Atheist shibboleth, no matter how unrelated
to the topic at hand:
>>> What I find amusing is that theists consider their faith to be enough
>>> proof the God exists, but demand *proof* from atheists that God *doesn't*
>>> exist...
A near- perfect example of the Atheist Two-step! Sidestep and ignore the
topic A HISTORY of ATHEISM, (clearly a topic they are all terrified of),
insert an unrelated topic for which the Atheist believes that have a
SCRIPTED solution!
But that was a little sloppy and he over-reached into a false assertion
about Theists HE could be asked to substantiate! B^D
>> Do theists consider their faith proof of God's existence? I'm not sure they
>> do...
Ah, the gentle placing of the Shiv of Logic between the ribs! B^D
Rational Theists, like Rational agnostics, do NOT attempt as
fundie Atheists AND fundie believers do, try to prove the existence
or non-existence of an immaterial entity.
And so here we see an in-completed and bumbled sidestep:
> If they did not so consider it, they would at least _try_ to furnish evidence
> instead of merely asserting (endlessly) that evidence exists.
Not only has he avoided the ORIGINAL issue but continues to blithely
ignore the damaging question which revealed the illogical weakness of
his attempted substitute topic.
3 / 10 A dismal fail
> -
> aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
For an Atheist, there is none, for others..Being a father or
grandfather... thinking with something other than your dick...
detachment.. clarity.... wisdom... .. all clearly beyond you!
> Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
> The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Not getting any lubricant, eh, that must make your weltenshuang
uncomfortable:
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
---
Subject: AQOTM fraud is a clear Breach of AQOTM RULES!!!! 8^o
Quotemeister *nemo*toad implicated! 8^o
Message-ID: <49847258$0$3253$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>
BwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
http://theatreinbrussels.com/ecc/images/stories/Productions/animalfarm-web.png
Don H
news:NuKll.20755$cu.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Don Martin grabbed Hyjacks strawman and danced the Atheist two-step:
> > "DVH" pointed out the illogic of Hyjacks straw man argument:
> >> "Paul Hyjack" <p...@invalid.invalid> tried an invalid ground shift
> >>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 at 18:05:11, Yap got erased by his atheist mate
> >>> uk.politics.misc :
> >>>
> >>>> fasgnadh wrote:
> >>>>>
>
> Before the Athei-Sith hordes scrambled into damage control,
> there was a serious, substantive issue here.. the Subject
> header made clear what it was and it was restated in the
> title... a HISTORY of ATHEISM.
>
> The stunning observation re Atheist reaction shows
> Athei-Sith are not only IGNORANT of their history, but
> antagonistic to it. It drives them into impotent fury,
> vicious personal ad hom assaults, and desperate attempts
> to change the subject.. let us observe one of these
> tactics in action, The Atheist Two-Step, and then follow
> it's deployment throughout the thread!
>
>
> >>>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1: showy
> >>>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> >>>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
> >>>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
> >>>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
> >>>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
> >>>>> Century.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
> >>>>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
> >>>>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
> >>>>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Ex nihilo nihil fit,"
> >>>>>
privative
> >>>>> ?- + ???? "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate
> >>>>> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE,
acquiring
> >>>>> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the
gods,
"impious".
> >>>>> Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as
# The obsession of fasgnadh with atheism seems to denote doubt on his part
as to the validity of his own theism. Whom is he trying to convince?
Himself?
What? Doesn't "God" answer your prayers? Yes, it is certainly a long
time since he made any revelations, did any acts, incarnations, visitations,
or miracles. - all these, long ago, in an ignorant and superstitious past.
The various religions purport to speak in God's name, but fatwahs are not
left to Allah to implement (lest he prove forgiving, or absent), but are
enforced by human assassins (an Arabic name, from hashish). If Allah is
offended, let he himself smite the infidel - or are there more "practical
atheists" than we care to admit?
Could it be that God only exists as an image in your mind, and when you
are dead you are merely dead?
Now fasgnadh poses as an expert on atheism; a long way to go yet, mate.
Fran
> Fran wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 5:13 pm, parish.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 7:54 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... stuff snipped ...
>
> >> Can you tell me how to plonk him? I'm new here and don't know how
>
> > anyone. Just note him and move on.
>
> > If you are using a dedicated newsreader there are functions to cease
> > gathering threads or posts from nominated persons.
>
> > I use google, but as soon as I see "fasgnadh" or something in his
> > native format I simply move on.
>
>
> Actually, there is a way if you use Firefox:
>
> (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/)
>
> 1. Install Greasemonkey:
>
> (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748)
>
> 2. Install Google Groups KillFile:
>
> http://www.penney.org/google-groups-killfile-351-released.html
>
> 3. Plonk away! ;-P
>
> ciao,
> f
>
Not all the places I access usenet from have firefox ...
In any event, it's no big thing simply to move on. It's kind of
amusing to see that he is still banging his head on the keyboard in a
desperate attempt to salve his angst.
Fran
turtoni
<snips of don waffling on>
Ah, the ol' "thou dost protest too much, methinks" argument.
> Now fasgnadh poses as an expert on atheism; a long way to go yet, mate.
Huh? But you mates keep saying that's its just that you don't believe
in God.
Well matey. You all have your own lil' Gods. ;-) And we can shit on
those too. :-))
fasgnadh
of any argument put by atheists.
> What?
Just keep dancing the Atheist Two Step, while I pull your strings! B^D
Cue Hurdy Gurdy music!
> Yes, it is certainly a long time since he made any revelations,
How long? B^]
Virgil
fasgnadh
> On Feb 14, 11:37 pm, magicus <fpri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 5:13 pm, pari
sh.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 7:54 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... stuff snipped ...
>>
>>>> Can you tell me how to plonk him? I'm new here and don't know how
>>> If you are using the google interface there is no capacity to "plonk"
>>> anyone. Just note him and move on.
>>> If you are using a dedicated newsreader there are functions to cease
>>> gathering threads or posts from nominated persons.
>>>
>>> Fran
>> Actually, there is a way if you use Firefox:
>>
>> (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/)
>>
>> 1. Install Greasemonkey:
I think Fran has already done that! B^D
>> (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748)
Fran's is more of a Strap on than an addon!
>> 2. Install Google Groups KillFile:
Or just close your eyes and chant "la la la I can't hear you!!!" B^D
>> http://www.penney.org/google-groups-killfile-351-released.html
>>
>> 3. Plonk away! ;-P
>>
>> ciao,
>> f
> Not all the places I access usenet from have firefox ...
No Firefox in North Korea, eh Tovarish?
> In any event, it's no big thing simply to move on.
That's nice dear.. just keep moving and don't let the door
slam your fat arse on the way out.
> It's kind of amusing to see that he is still
> banging his head on the keyboard in a
> desperate attempt to salve his angst.
But Fran, I'm not the one desperately directing others not to read you
and being pointedly ignored by all of Usenet!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHHAAA
Yup, that's some angst! B^]
Any more 'angst' and my sides will split with laughter! B^D
>
> Fran
Comrade Klebb can still always a moment for a weak swipe,
begging others to follow her in RUNING AWAY, but never has
the time to back up her lies and slanders.
So, you have really painted yourself into a corner with your
clarion call to all your Athei-Sith Komrades that they ignore
valid topics for discussion, and follow your directive to
implement NewSpeak
# "The underlying theory of NewSpeak is that if something can't
# be said, then it can't be thought."
# This suits the totalitarian
# regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative
# thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest
# edition of NewSpeak — or speech impossible by removing
# any words or possible constructs which describe the
# ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on."
As an old commie bitch, you understand the tactic well,
and so with nothing by way of ARGUMENT but your vile
slander and personal Character assassination (which constitutes
100% of your pathetic posts) you called for Atheists to respond
to discussion in discussion groups by refusing to discuss, and
resorted instead to ad hom and abuse;
>>> troll.
>>> lies and misrepresents
>>> odious
My post is, of course, principally the writings of experts on
the topic of atheist history! 8^o and so, Klebb, you have really
stabbed yourself in the foot, with your attempt to dismisses
all of it without any reason!!
Anti-intellectualism lies at the heart of the Dictatorship
of the Proletariat, and the Terror, which Fran has remained
committed to long after other Stalinists have recanted.
She knows my posts are incredibly effective in
inspiring lively and vigorous debate, which she
and the Party HATE;
>>> He knows that this will provoke further responses
#############################################################
# #
# Dear Comrade Klebb, the party is most disappointed with #
# the reaction of the Athei-Sith Stooges to your latest #
# directive that they would be advised not to read, let #
# alone debate with Emmanual fasgnadh Goldstein [curses, #
# teeth gnashing]. It has come to our attention that far #
# from ignoring the Heretic, they have ignored YOU, and #
# that thread is going GANGBUSTERS with 100 posts on it's #
# first DAY! 8^o #
163 posts, Comrade Kleb! B^D Looks like you and pariah
simply TOOK YOURSELF OUT OF THE DEBATE ON ATHEISM!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
You are no loss to the world of ideas and open discussion, eh!?
# As it is clear that not even the Atheist tools believe #
# you have any residual credibility that you use your #
# poison-laden Switch-blade shoes to kick yourself in the #
# arse, about as hard as Fasgnadh has been doing these #
# months and years, you failed, venomous, commie bitch! #
# #
# - Grand Poohbah, Ministry of Trooth #
# #
#############################################################
This is the heart of Fran's bitter bile, the sad old commie
bitch is gnashing her gums in impotent rage that the atheists
are JUST NOT LISTENING to the discredited Commie thugs any more!
The tragic marriage of Atheism and Communism in the Great Utopian
Catastrophes of the 20th Century ended in fractious DIVORCE after
they ATE THEIR OWN CHILDREN!!!!!! 8^o
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
==> Terror, torture, persecution and the slaughter of 40,000,000
But the post Fran wanted to silence, to shut down debate on, was not
about this Dark Age of Atheism, but about it's beginnings, and even
that early stage of Atheist obscurity and irrelevance was met with by
hysteria from the screeching Athei_Sith, like Hollywood
Holy Water splashed on a screeching Vampire;
>>> Taking his content at its prima facie value cannot shed new light on
>>> any matter of importance.
Classic NewSpeak.. don't read it, it will destroy your mind! B^D
As in the Atheist tyrannies, Fran wants NO DISCUSSION, only the
Orthodox Party view.. HERS! B^D
Instead we get denunciation of Emmanuel Goldstein and the
enemies of Oceania;
>>> troll
>>> save your energy
>>> post as the starting point for discussion
>>> troll
>>> yammer away
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAAA
>> Can you tell me how to plonk him?
>> I'm new here and don't know how
Easy, do what Fran and all the intellectually defective
Athei-Sith do when confronted by HISTORICAL REALITY;
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
I will leave you in the capable claws of Comrade Klebb
who will instruct you one the details of cranium insertion..
SHE'S THE EXPERT!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA
>
> If you are using the google interface there is no capacity to "plonk"
> anyone. Just note him and move on.
>
> If you are using a dedicated newsreader there are functions to cease
> gathering threads or posts from nominated persons.
>
> I use google, but as soon as I see "fasgnadh" or something in his
> native format I simply move on.
This post was a great example of that, you lying hypocritical bitch!
B^D
You are a Shitsplatter and RUN, ad hom slanderer, nothing more.
> Fran
--
How Can Stalin's attendance at a Catholic Seminary
as a youth be the cause of the 'Authoritarian Soviet
State', when it was established by LENIN!!!!!!
# From: Fran <Fran...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.religion,aus.politics,uk.politics.misc
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus
# Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<bf35a180-1029-482c...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
#
# > It's an interesting fact that the "atheist" Stalin
# > learnt his repressive methodology and
# > his paranoia at the knees of Russian Orthodox
# > priests in that seminary
# > in Georgia, and merely mapped what he had learned onto the new
# > authoritarian Russian state.
But Comrade Fran, LENIN, NOT Stalin,minitiated the Red Terror
and the Authoritarian, Atheistic Communist state, .. and he
was never near a Catholic seminary! B^D
Sorry Fran, you can't even get the BASIC elements of your lie right,
the "Authoritarian SOVIET State" was mapped by Lenin, and as we
all know, you can't find him anywhere NEAR a church! B^D
Kelsey Bjarnason
fasgnadh wrote:
> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
> ignorant of the origins of their ideology
Which isn't surprising, as we don't have one. Do you plan to ever clue
in to this simple, basic fact?
, and are not even
> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
> Century.
Which number zero. Totalitarian tyrannies are manifold, led by rulers
both theistic and otherwise, however.
> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
The most concise refutation of God.
> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative
> ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".
Specifically, "without gods", as in "Is there a god? Who knows? Who
cares? Pass me a beer."
> The word began to indicate
> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
And in modern times, as used by atheists, it adheres to its older
meaning; only the god-addled sorts can't cope with this.
> Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth
> centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic
> ... The term 'atheist' was an insult.
True, but that was during a period when the Church held a lot of sway -
a time where "thinker" was also an insult, and a potentially fatal one
at that.
> Nobody would have dreamed of
> calling himself an atheist.
Publicly, at least. Anyone calling themselves anything - atheist,
freethinker, rationalist, what have you - which indicated *anything*
short of absolute, unshakable belief in and support of the church faced
anything from simple censure to actual death by slow torture.
Hardly surprising few would call themselves atheist, when those "moved
by the love of God" were ready, at the drop of a hat, to "correct"
errors by such loving means as burning at the stake.
An interesting titbit I ran across the other day. Seems one of the less
pleasant death-by-torture devices (the garotte, IIRC) was developed as a
"humane" alternative to burning at the stake. If they recanted
whatever they'd said and accepted the "true church", the convicted could
choose the "humane" death over the burning. They're still dead, of
course; can't actually let anyone live if they don't think right, that
wouldn't be in the loving spirit of Christianity.
Yes, well, I'm surprised millions weren't lining up to shout "I'm an
atheist!" from the rooftops.
"[5] Atheism was first used to describe a
> self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting
> disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[6]
And later migrated back to its original form, the more generalized lack
of belief in deities. Of course, the religious, mired as they are in
thinking patterns centuries behind the rest of the world, haven't
apparently caught on yet.
> In the 20th century,
> globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to
> disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to
> describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".
One should point out here that "disbelief" can be be active - "Ain't no
such thing as gods!" - or passive - "Show me a god and I'll consider it,
until then I just don't care." Most atheists are the latter sort; most
theists seem unable to grasp this.
>[7] Most recently, there
> has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as
> the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own
> right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though
> its mainstream usage has been limited.[8]
Indeed, because "mainstream" is synonymous with "religious", and for the
most part synonymous with "Christian", which means "stuck in thought
patterns which haven't applied for three or more centuries".
Kelsey Bjarnason
fasgnadh wrote:
> Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid by the historical facts,
No idea who these "Athei-Sith" are, but examining the question, we have
to note that you seem unable to differentiate between "historical" and
"current".
Applying your same "thinking", we would have to conclude that the
crusades, the witch hunts, the inquisitions and so forth are *current*
events, not historical ones.
Or, you could focus on current topics, current meanings, rather than
pretending word usage and the like don't change over time.
That would, of course, require an intellectual leap I'm not sure you're
qualified to make. Still, feel free to surprise us.
Kelsey Bjarnason
fasgnadh wrote:
> THE ATHEISTS ARE FINALLY REBELLING AGAINST THE COMMIES..
Hmm, wasn't it *you* whining about how the commies *are* atheists? So
what you're saying is the atheists are rebelling against themselves.
Which might actually make sense if atheism had any sort of doctrine over
which to fight, but since it doesn't, that just leaves you babbling. Again.
Kelsey Bjarnason
raven1 wrote:
>> The Atheist ideology
>
> There is no such thing. Marxism-Leninism is an ideology, atheism
> isn't.
True, but it was Stalinism, by and large, which led to the destruction.
> Which again, was no more the fault of atheism than the Bush regime
> being the fault of Christianity, or al Qaeda being the fault of Islam.
> Take a course in logic, for fuck's sake.
He's a) a troll, and b) (apparently) a God-addled troll, at that. Net
result: even where he's interested in logic (not often) he is more or
less incapable of applying it.
polymer
If the blowhard is looking for someone to be mad at, he should
pick the Iranians -- their former theocracy was the only
government in recent history to murder large numbers of
members of Bahá'í.
I also suspect that the guy is actually a ringer who is
trying to discredit the Bahá'í; perhaps he was thrown
out of the church. Geez, what kind of screwup would you
have to be to be thrown out of that religion?
--
polymer
abelard
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>One should point out here that "disbelief" can be be active - "Ain't no
>such thing as gods!" - or passive - "Show me a god and I'll consider it,
> until then I just don't care." Most atheists are the latter sort; most
>theists seem unable to grasp this.
neat distinction...
perhaps you can spread such a category distinction abroad among
the(this?) nest of confused dogmatists
chazwin
> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>
> 1: showy
> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>
> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
> Century.
>
> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>
>
> "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative
> more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring
> definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods,
> ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
> "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos.
> The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and
> Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to
> the other.[1]
>
> In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in
> about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one
> who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[2] predates atheism in
> English, being first attested in about 1571.[3] Atheist as a label of
> practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[4]
>
> centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic
> calling himself an atheist."[5] Atheism was first used to describe a
> self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting
> globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to
> disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to
> has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as
> the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own
> right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though
> its mainstream usage has been limited.[8]
>
>
> [1] Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922
> edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN
> 0-89005-201-8. "Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots
> and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek;
> their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said
You highlight this quote as if it were some amzing revelation - it is
not.
Darwin's position then is identical to the ordinary atheist today. He
would no more have been able to apply the term pejorative term
"atheist" to himself then as I would used to the term devil worshipper
of myself. Darwin had no time for religion and actively refused to
attend any church. The phrase he applied to himself agnostic was
coined by his friend T H Huxley and was a convenient term to dismiss
Christianity whilst avoiding the prejudice and persecution of what was
then still illegal, by stating that god's existence was not possible
to verify or deny: the literal meaning of agnostic. So whilst you have
presumably tried to read the link, you have failed to see its
subtleties.
raven1
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>fasgnadh wrote:
>
>> Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid by the historical facts,
>
>No idea who these "Athei-Sith" are, but examining the question, we have
>to note that you seem unable to differentiate between "historical" and
>"current".
He is indeed completely clueless as to such a distinction; he tried to
claim in a response to me that algebra was a current contribution to
human knowledge from the Islamic world, on the grounds that people
still use it.
Fran
Not to mention that what was so subversive about Darwin's Theory of
Natural Selection was that for him the theory was a *creative* force
-- nay *the* creative force, and that this sufficed to explain life on
Earth. He thus made the concept of god redundant.
Fran
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> parish.matt is so terrified of FACTS and LOGIC, he snips and runs:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>>>
>>>> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
>>>> 1: showy
>>>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>>>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>>>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>>>
>>
>> Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid by the historical facts,
>> response is to SNIP it ALL, and RUN AWAY like fearful infants,
>> screeching hysterically that ONLY YOUR VIEW matters! B^D
>
> No idea
So you have very little insight into your condition, either! B^D
>>
>> We took a photo of you trying to avoid the issues:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
>>
>>>>
>>>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>>>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>>>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>>>> Century.
>>>>
>>>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>>>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>>>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>>>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>>>
>>>> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
>>>>
> examining the question,
You frauds never do that, you simply SNIPPED it all and ran away!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA
and all you put in place of a series of scholars examining and
explaining the HISTORY OF ATHEISM, is this absurd shitdribble:
> we have to note that you seem unable to differentiate
> between "historical" and "current".
How absurd, you poor confused cretin.. the thread is entitled
"A Brief History of Atheism" because it is a collection of historical
evidence from a range of prominent experts on that topic!
The only confusion between that, and 'contemporary events' is YOURS! B^]
That you Athei-Sith morons show no interest in the history of
Atheism surprises no one.. you always IGNORE evidence which
reveals how silly you and your ideology are! B^D
If only you poor fools would OPEN YOUR CLOSED AND BIGOTED MINDS,
you might actually learn something;
> Applying your same "thinking",
But that isn't MY thinking, you poor deluded cretin! B^D
It's the scholarly work of historians! B^D
You don't even seem to grasp what HISTORY is!!!?!! 8^o
> we would have to conclude that the crusades,
> the witch hunts, the inquisitions and so forth are *current*
> events, not historical ones.
Who can say why you total fuckwits would 'conclude' such
obvious nonsense! Stupidy would be the most likely explanation,
by Occams Razor!
> Or, you could focus on current topics, current meanings,
In a post detailing the HISTORY of Atheism?????
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHHAAA!!
I don't think I have ever met a bigger fool and more ignorant
dimwit than you in all Usenet!! B^D
Why are you so confused between HISTORY and contemporary
society???
> pretending word usage and the like don't change over time.
And I thought you couldn't get any more stupid!?!!! B^D
> That would, of course, require an intellectual leap
Something you will never do, lacking the requisite equipment!
> I'm not sure
Anyone who reads your posts is! B^D
> you're qualified
Sure, I'm a polymath with three tertiary qualifications,
a father of clever and accomplished children,
a 400 hectare hobby farm and a wife so lovely you would
beast your brains out with a rock, just to escape the jealousy!
> feel free to surprise us.
I have done nothing but that since I got here! B^D
The fact that you have all followed me about quacking Duckspeak
merely underscores what limited, unoriginal, doctrinaire ideologues and
fourth rate intellects you all are!!
Please keep coming back for more! B^]
Oh, here's more of the HISTORICAL REALITY you simply
can't deal with, snip, avoid, run away from and endlessly
WHINE ABOUT!
>>> What part of "atheism is not an ideology" do you not understand?
>>
>> The part where real atheists, not preppie infants like yourself,
>> tell us in well supported peer-reviewed documents, that it IS;
>>
>>
>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>
>> What should you now do in the face of all that serious scholastic
>> work you tried to avoid by snipping ALL of it?
>>
>> > Try understanding what atheism is (and is not)
>>
>> This might help you, it's called HISTORICAL REALITY, and contrary
>> to Athei-Sith BELIEFS, you cannot run away from it by pushing your
>> fat head further up your even fatter arse! B^]
>>
>> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
>> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>
>> "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...
>> all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" - Stalin
>> - E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,
>> Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
>>
>> But it was not just the Atheism of the leadership,
>> but of the entire State apparatus;
>>
>> The Atheist leadership's policies were implemented under
>> the red Terror, via gulags and executions, the use of
>> every arm of the state for anti-religious propaganda
>> and the forced indoctrination of CHILDREN! B^[
>>
>> “We do not fight against believers and not even clergymen.
>> WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him.”
>> -Vechernaia Moskva, a Soviet newspaper
>>
>> “Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth,
>> and God from Heaven!” (early Soviet slogan)
>>
>> "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
>> - Daniel Peris,
>> "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
>> Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
>>
>> "Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden"
>>
>> "Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
>> In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
>> 3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
>> Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
>> in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
>> In 1922, the Solovki Camp of Special Purpose, the first Russian
>> concentration camp was established in the Solovki Islands in the White Sea"
>>
>> John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State
>> (Boston: Little Brown, 1953)
>>
>> # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
>> #
>> # "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
>> # by a government, typically by active suppression of
>> # religious freedom and practice."
>> # - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
>> # Characteristics and Consequences,
>> # David Kowalewski,
>> # Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,
>> #
>> #
>> # "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhist religion:
>> # monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
>> # Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
>> # other religious sentiments were often killed.
>> # ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
>> # and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
>> # and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
>> # starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
>> # prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
>> # instead of the family.
>> #
>> # About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
>> # were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot’s regime."
>> # - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
>> #
>> # The Cambodian Genocide:
>> http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
>>
>>
>> #
>> # "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
>> # regarded by the regime as social parasites,
>> # were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
>> # Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
>> # destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
>> # Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
>> # rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
>> # or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
>> # were often killed.
>> #
>> # The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
>> # persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
>> # Phnom Penh was completely razed.
>> #
>> # The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
>> # regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
>> # Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
>> # - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm
>> #
>> # "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
>> # because of their religion."
>> #
>> http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg
>>
>> #
>> #
>> # "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
>> # - Daniel Peris,
>> # "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
>> # Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
>> #
>> #
>> # "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist
>> # countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China,
>> # Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea,
>> # Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also
>> # promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.
>> # - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland.
>> # Wolak, Arthur J. p 104
>> #
>> # In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an
>> # intrinsic part of communist ideology.
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> # "Religious persecution in the Soviet Union"
>> #
>> # US Department of State Bulletin, Nov, 1986 by Edward J. Derwinski
>> #
>> #
>> # " The Soviet regime regards religion as a hostile ideology
>> # and is openly committed to the creation of an atheist society.
>> # Its attitude was summed up by a Byelorussian party official
>> # who wrote a 1984 article in Kommunist Belorussii that "religion
>> # in our country is the only legal refuge alien to socialism
>> # in ideology and morals." How Soviet authorities understand
>> # freedom of conscience is revealed in Soviet constitutional
>> # provisions, legislation, administrative regulations,
>> # and extralegal pressures applied against believers."
>> #
>> #
>> # Soviet Law and Religion
>> #
>> # Article 52 of the U.S.S.R. Constitution .. in effect makes
>> # illegal the conduct of "religious propaganda"; i.e.,
>> # to engage in public discussion or refute atheist propaganda.
>> #
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And what should you STOP doing, you stupid little Athei-Sith liar?
>>
>>> be ranting and raving about it.
>>
>> Very well.. run along now and get some salve for that bruised arse of
>> yours.. in future don't try and stuff your head up it, especially
>> while I AM KICKING IT!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA!
fasgnadh
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:21:20 -0800, parish.matt wrote:
>> What part
...
>> do you not understand?
>
> The part with words...
>
I note that pariah tried to draw you a diagram instead..
the fact he painted it using his own excrement probably
explains why neither of you has a clue! B^D
ABOUT ANYTHING!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
One day, when you grow out of nappies, there is a serious
issue you may finally be able to read, if not actually UNDERSTAND;
---------
parish.matt is so terrified of FACTS and LOGIC, he snips and runs:
> fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>> A Brief History of Atheism - Chapter 1 "On The Origin of Specious"
>>
>> "specious \ˈspē-shəs\
>> 1: showy
>> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
>> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness :
>> sophistic <specious reasoning>
>
><snip rest of idiotic drivel>
Why are you irrational Athei-Sith so paranoid about the
historical facts, clear evidence and Scholarly (rational)
argument, that your only response is to SNIP it ALL,
and RUN AWAY like fearful infants,
screeching hysterically that ONLY YOUR VIEW matters! B^D
We took a photo of you trying to avoid the issues:
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html
>>
>> "It has become apparent that many Atheists are completely
>> ignorant of the origins of their ideology, and are not even
>> aware of it's tragic nadir, in the Atheist tyrannies of the 20th
>> Century.
>>
>> As ignorance leads to fear and hatred, so abundantly evident
>> in the aforesaid Atheist Holocausts, and the posts of modern
>> atheists, I have prepared a short series to present a History Of
>> Atheism, beginning with it's Genesis;
>>
>> “Ex nihilo nihil fit,”
>>