Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Where do rights come from? Evolution is the answer.
23 views
Skip to first unread message
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:31:25 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 3:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:19:46 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"<Sape...@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>> "Jeanne Douglas"<hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:hlwdjsd-230F15...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>> In article<k1p5af$jr5$2...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article<k1olv3$sdj$6...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> To actively NOT believe is to substitute another belief system.
>>>
>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>
>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>> activity-free.
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>
> We are forced to explain to ignorant theists why they don't have any
> idea what they are talking about, but they are so full of their own
> delusions that they refuse to ever use evidence, logic or defensible
> assumptions.
Look at the obvious vitriol spew from you, that's belief times ten!
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:19:46 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"<Sape...@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>> "Jeanne Douglas"<hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:hlwdjsd-230F15...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>> In article<k1p5af$jr5$2...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article<k1olv3$sdj$6...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> To actively NOT believe is to substitute another belief system.
>>>
>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>
>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>> activity-free.
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>
> We are forced to explain to ignorant theists why they don't have any
> idea what they are talking about, but they are so full of their own
> delusions that they refuse to ever use evidence, logic or defensible
> assumptions.
Look at the obvious vitriol spew from you, that's belief times ten!
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:31:48 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 3:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>>
>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>
>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>>
>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>
>>
>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>
> Different level. You clearly do not have any idea how thinking works.
I know usenet is for all, but must we have so many morons?
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:32:21 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 3:53 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:28:49 -0600, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/30/2012 9:10 PM, Fred wrote:
>>
>>
>> OK, you're out , bye.
>
> Theists have a hard time trying to defend their opinions because they
> have no evidence to support what they preach and cannot defend their
> claims with valid assumptions or with logic.
God-haters have an easy time being hateful, for them it is a natural thing.
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:28:49 -0600, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/30/2012 9:10 PM, Fred wrote:
>>> Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>
>>> At least cult savages recognize
>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, you're out , bye.
>
> Theists have a hard time trying to defend their opinions because they
> have no evidence to support what they preach and cannot defend their
> claims with valid assumptions or with logic.
God-haters have an easy time being hateful, for them it is a natural thing.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:33:55 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:00 PM, Fred wrote:
> Fucking insane cult savages.
And those are just your inlaws...
> Fucking insane cult savages.
And those are just your inlaws...
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:34:41 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:04 PM, Dano wrote:
> "Donn Messenheimer" wrote in message
> news:K_GdnRkyYvOJr9zN...@giganews.com...
>
> On 8/31/2012 2:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:21 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>
>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>
>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>
>> No, it is only a statement about belief, a lack of belief.
>
> The statement is a statement of religious belief. Statements of
> religious belief are not always affirmative.
>
> ===============================================
>
> Nope. It's more accurately a statement of DISbelief. You're being
> obtuse. Deliberately so I'd guess.
>
> I don't believe unicorns exist either. Needing evidence of something's
> existence is more properly described as "scientific belief".
Expressing obvious distaste for something is evidence of belief.
> "Donn Messenheimer" wrote in message
> news:K_GdnRkyYvOJr9zN...@giganews.com...
>
> On 8/31/2012 2:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:21 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What is it I'm supposed to believe?
>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>
>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>
>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>
>> No, it is only a statement about belief, a lack of belief.
>
> The statement is a statement of religious belief. Statements of
> religious belief are not always affirmative.
>
> ===============================================
>
> Nope. It's more accurately a statement of DISbelief. You're being
> obtuse. Deliberately so I'd guess.
>
> I don't believe unicorns exist either. Needing evidence of something's
> existence is more properly described as "scientific belief".
Expressing obvious distaste for something is evidence of belief.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:35:40 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:10 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
> In article<O17QAq.Y...@invalid.invalid>, Seth F.<sf89...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 01:03:15PM -0700, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>> wrote:
>>> In article<lMKdnTHJ-fFnRN3N...@giganews.com>,
>>> Mikey
>>> has already disparaged religions, so he has an actual disbelief which is
>>> proven
>>> by no evidence, merely his assumptions about reality.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately Mikey lacks the courage to work througn his beliefs and their
>>> implications; instead he redefines 'belief' to suit his prejudices.
>>
>> When scientists assert that the Universe exists, they are not
>> asserting belief. Unless you're a right-tard.
>
> Actually they are. There is no way to prove our universe is not just a
> simulation in Quake Arena, or that you're not just repeating some script written
> by a programmer. You can whine about 'solipism,' but you whine because you
> cannot cope with the logic of the situation.
>
"The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot is a good read.
> In article<O17QAq.Y...@invalid.invalid>, Seth F.<sf89...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 01:03:15PM -0700, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>> wrote:
>>> In article<lMKdnTHJ-fFnRN3N...@giganews.com>,
>>> Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> What is it I'm supposed to believe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>>
>>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>>
>>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>>
>>> If you neither believe nor disbelieve you could claim no belief. However
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> What is it I'm supposed to believe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>>
>>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>>
>>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>>
>>> Mikey
>>> has already disparaged religions, so he has an actual disbelief which is
>>> proven
>>> by no evidence, merely his assumptions about reality.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately Mikey lacks the courage to work througn his beliefs and their
>>> implications; instead he redefines 'belief' to suit his prejudices.
>>
>> When scientists assert that the Universe exists, they are not
>> asserting belief. Unless you're a right-tard.
>
> Actually they are. There is no way to prove our universe is not just a
> simulation in Quake Arena, or that you're not just repeating some script written
> by a programmer. You can whine about 'solipism,' but you whine because you
> cannot cope with the logic of the situation.
>
"The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot is a good read.
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 8:36:00 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:45 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:20:10 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:37 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:59:16 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>> So you do understand that "You clearly do not have any idea how thinking
>>> works" is correct.
>>
>> It's wrong. I do understand very well how thinking works. You're a
>> sophist, and you don't know.
>
> All I see from you is assertions that you cannot defend.
All I see from you is lame sophistry.
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:20:10 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:37 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:59:16 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Different level.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Different level.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you do understand that "You clearly do not have any idea how thinking
>>> works" is correct.
>>
>> It's wrong. I do understand very well how thinking works. You're a
>> sophist, and you don't know.
>
> All I see from you is assertions that you cannot defend.
All I see from you is lame sophistry.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:36:23 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:11 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> It would make a nice change if you didn't do it in your pants for once.
Crackpot:
<slrnk40edb....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
"I am an atheist. I don't believe in God.
"I don't have disbelief in your God."
"I have no belief in God."
"I don't disbelief in God, if by disbelieve you mean "believe God
doesn't exist"."
"I neither belief God exists, nor believe God doesn't exist."
"I don't believe in any deities."
"Cite/quote me saying so."
"I would need an almost infinite amount of beliefs to actively
believe every deity "doesn't" exist - Which is why I do not."
"I don't believe in any deities."
> It would make a nice change if you didn't do it in your pants for once.
Crackpot:
<slrnk40edb....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
"I am an atheist. I don't believe in God.
"I don't have disbelief in your God."
"I have no belief in God."
"I don't disbelief in God, if by disbelieve you mean "believe God
doesn't exist"."
"I neither belief God exists, nor believe God doesn't exist."
"I don't believe in any deities."
"Cite/quote me saying so."
"I would need an almost infinite amount of beliefs to actively
believe every deity "doesn't" exist - Which is why I do not."
"I don't believe in any deities."
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:36:57 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:16 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> At least to us sane people, so we can exclude you.
> At least to us sane people, so we can exclude you.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:37:07 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:20 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> Higher above you say:
> Higher above you say:
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:37:16 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:22 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> You can't have it both ways. I know you like your special pleading.
> You can't have it both ways. I know you like your special pleading.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:37:30 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:25 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> He can't argue his position so he has to change it!
> He can't argue his position so he has to change it!
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:37:47 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:30 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> Make your mind up.
> Make your mind up.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:38:04 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
Liar.
> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
Liar.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:38:31 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:34 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> you got your ass kicked --- AGAIN.
> you got your ass kicked --- AGAIN.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 8:38:40 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:35 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> Concession note, concession accepted.
> Concession note, concession accepted.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:43:38 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
>On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>teachings?
>
>Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>reinforcement for doing so?
>
>I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>Bible.
>
>Thanks, Gordon
I was a believer when I read and studied the entire Bible. This led me
to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too many
errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
>On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>teachings?
>
>Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>reinforcement for doing so?
>
>I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>Bible.
>
>Thanks, Gordon
I was a believer when I read and studied the entire Bible. This led me
to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too many
errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:44:47 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:34:01 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>>
>> We tell you that we do not believe in any gods.
>
>And that's a statement of religious belief.
Every bit as much as bald is a hair color.
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you have.
>>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>>
>> We tell you that we do not believe in any gods.
>
>And that's a statement of religious belief.
Every bit as much as bald is a hair color.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:45:14 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:29:21 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 3:48 PM, Dano wrote:
>> "Donn Messenheimer" wrote in message
>> news:nKKdnbGkZaUEptzN...@giganews.com...
>>
>> What a childish twat you are.
>
>Irony.
Your claims are still 100% fact-free.
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 3:48 PM, Dano wrote:
>> "Donn Messenheimer" wrote in message
>>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>
>> Yes, you have.
>>
>> ==========================================
>> On 8/31/2012 3:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>
>> Yes, you have.
>>
>>
>> What a childish twat you are.
>
>Irony.
Your claims are still 100% fact-free.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:46:01 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:32:56 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:24 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:32:57 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:50 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:16:59 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>>>>> belief; "I don't believe God exists" cannot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both are religious beliefs. "I do not believe..." is a statement about
>>>>>>>>> your beliefs. The category is religion. "I don't believe God exists"
>>>>>>>>> is a statement of religious belief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, a statement *about* your beliefs. Not *a* belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A statement of belief: a statement of religious belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A statement about belief, not of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a statement, in the negative, of belief regarding religion. It is
>>>>> a religious belief.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Yes, sir. I said that I didn't say that you couldn't punish me."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Just what the hell are you talking about?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm answering your question, sir."
>>>>>
>>>>> "What question?"
>>>>>
>>>>> " Just what the hell did you mean, you bastard, when you said we
>>>>> couldn't punish you?' " said the corporal who could take
>>>>> shorthand, reading from his steno pad.
>>>>>
>>>>> "All right," said the colonel. "Just what the hell did you mean?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir."
>>>>>
>>>>> "When?" asked the colonel.
>>>>>
>>>>> "When what, sir?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Now you're asking me questions again."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm sorry, sir. I'm afraid I don't understand your question."
>>>>>
>>>>> "When didn't you say we couldn't punish you? Don't you
>>>>> understand my question?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "No, sir. I don't understand."
>>>>>
>>>>> "You've just told us that. Now suppose you answer my question."
>>>>>
>>>>> "But how can I answer it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "That's another question you're asking me."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm sorry, sir. But I don't know how to answer it. I never said
>>>>> you couldn't punish me."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Now you're telling us when you did say it. I'm asking you to
>>>>> tell us when you didn't say it."
>>>>>
>>>>> Clevinger took a deep breath. "I always didn't say you couldn't
>>>>> punish me, sir."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's funny when Joseph Heller puts it into his novel, but it's just
>>>>> plain stupid when you jackballs keep trying to insist you're not
>>>>> expressing your religious beliefs, both positive and negative. You *are*.
>
>You have some belief about the existence of a deity. You believe there
>is a deity, or you believe there is no deity, or you don't believe there
>is a deity. All three are possible categorizations concerning your
>belief regarding a deity, and that makes them religious beliefs.
Only to those who understand neither logic nor English.
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:24 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:32:57 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 3:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:58:01 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:50 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:16:59 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:13 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "I believe God does not exist" could be construed as a religious
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:13 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> belief; "I don't believe God exists" cannot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both are religious beliefs. "I do not believe..." is a statement about
>>>>>>>>> your beliefs. The category is religion. "I don't believe God exists"
>>>>>>>>> is a statement of religious belief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, a statement *about* your beliefs. Not *a* belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A statement of belief: a statement of religious belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A statement about belief, not of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a statement, in the negative, of belief regarding religion. It is
>>>>> a religious belief.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Yes, sir. I said that I didn't say that you couldn't punish me."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Just what the hell are you talking about?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm answering your question, sir."
>>>>>
>>>>> "What question?"
>>>>>
>>>>> " Just what the hell did you mean, you bastard, when you said we
>>>>> couldn't punish you?' " said the corporal who could take
>>>>> shorthand, reading from his steno pad.
>>>>>
>>>>> "All right," said the colonel. "Just what the hell did you mean?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir."
>>>>>
>>>>> "When?" asked the colonel.
>>>>>
>>>>> "When what, sir?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Now you're asking me questions again."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm sorry, sir. I'm afraid I don't understand your question."
>>>>>
>>>>> "When didn't you say we couldn't punish you? Don't you
>>>>> understand my question?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "No, sir. I don't understand."
>>>>>
>>>>> "You've just told us that. Now suppose you answer my question."
>>>>>
>>>>> "But how can I answer it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "That's another question you're asking me."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm sorry, sir. But I don't know how to answer it. I never said
>>>>> you couldn't punish me."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Now you're telling us when you did say it. I'm asking you to
>>>>> tell us when you didn't say it."
>>>>>
>>>>> Clevinger took a deep breath. "I always didn't say you couldn't
>>>>> punish me, sir."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's funny when Joseph Heller puts it into his novel, but it's just
>>>>> plain stupid when you jackballs keep trying to insist you're not
>>>>> expressing your religious beliefs, both positive and negative. You *are*.
>>>>
>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Yes, you have.
>>
>> Name them.
>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Yes, you have.
>>
>
>You have some belief about the existence of a deity. You believe there
>is a deity, or you believe there is no deity, or you don't believe there
>is a deity. All three are possible categorizations concerning your
>belief regarding a deity, and that makes them religious beliefs.
Only to those who understand neither logic nor English.
Jeanne Douglas
Aug 31, 2012, 8:45:05 PM8/31/12
to
In article <VvudndKaa7SGp9zN...@giganews.com>,
Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >> Lack of belief *might* be a belief, but unless the person has expressed
> >> his lack of belief, you just can't say.
> >
> > Then you agree that "no car" might be a type of "car".
>
> No.
>
> Your car example is of a different kind altogether.
How?
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >> his lack of belief, you just can't say.
> >
> > Then you agree that "no car" might be a type of "car".
>
> No.
>
> Your car example is of a different kind altogether.
How?
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:46:13 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:38:04 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
>
>Liar.
Show me.
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
>
>Liar.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:46:45 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:30:48 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 3:50 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:16:59 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> You have spent too much time jumping over limbo sticks with your theist
>> friends.
>
>You are demonstrating hatred which equals bias, which makes you not
>credible.
You may choose to love lies equally to the truth, but I choose not to.
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 3:50 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:16:59 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 9:13 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 9:13 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "I believe God does not exist" could be construed as a religious
>>>>>> belief; "I don't believe God exists" cannot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both are religious beliefs. "I do not believe..." is a statement about
>>>>> your beliefs. The category is religion. "I don't believe God exists"
>>>>> is a statement of religious belief.
>>>>
>>>> Right, a statement *about* your beliefs. Not *a* belief.
>>>
>>> A statement of belief: a statement of religious belief.
>>
>> A statement about belief, not of belief.
>>
>>> I'm better at this than you. You're not good at it at all.
>>>>>> belief; "I don't believe God exists" cannot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both are religious beliefs. "I do not believe..." is a statement about
>>>>> your beliefs. The category is religion. "I don't believe God exists"
>>>>> is a statement of religious belief.
>>>>
>>>> Right, a statement *about* your beliefs. Not *a* belief.
>>>
>>> A statement of belief: a statement of religious belief.
>>
>> A statement about belief, not of belief.
>>
>>
>> You have spent too much time jumping over limbo sticks with your theist
>> friends.
>
>You are demonstrating hatred which equals bias, which makes you not
>credible.
You may choose to love lies equally to the truth, but I choose not to.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:47:30 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:33:16 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:25 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:33:42 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 3:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:52:14 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:21 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>
>>> I'm not. I'm completely correct on this.
>>
>> Yet you have proven yourself totally unable to defend your claim.
>
>That's false.
So you assert, but carefully avoid making any effort to show us that you
can defend your claim.
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 4:25 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:33:42 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 3:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:52:14 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:21 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What is it I'm supposed to believe?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is only a statement about belief, a lack of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement is a statement of religious belief. Statements of
>>>>> religious belief are not always affirmative.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement is a statement of religious belief. Statements of
>>>>> religious belief are not always affirmative.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not. I'm completely correct on this.
>>
>> Yet you have proven yourself totally unable to defend your claim.
>
>That's false.
So you assert, but carefully avoid making any effort to show us that you
can defend your claim.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:48:02 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:31:48 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 3:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL
>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>
>>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>>
>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>
>> Different level. You clearly do not have any idea how thinking works.
>
>I know usenet is for all, but must we have so many morons?
You and Donn can leave.
>On 8/31/2012 3:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL
>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>
>>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>>
>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>
>> Different level. You clearly do not have any idea how thinking works.
>
>I know usenet is for all, but must we have so many morons?
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 8:47:04 PM8/31/12
to
Saying that you don't believe in something is a statement of belief - a
negative statement of belief. Because the object of the statement is
something pertaining to religion, the statement is a statement of
religious belief.
George Plimpton
Aug 31, 2012, 8:47:34 PM8/31/12
to
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 8:49:22 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:27:50 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 3:48 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:51:18 -0600, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote in
>> alt.atheism:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>
>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>
>> Not believing is a statement about beliefs, but it is not a belief.
>
>Nope.
>
>It is an actve, not a passive stae.
>
>
>>> In essence disbelief is simply a negative pole belief.
>>
>> Nope. Not believing is nothing more than not believing. It is not a
>> negative belief.
>
>Sure is, especially for strident atheists.
>
>> You still have failed to offer any actual beliefs that you claim
>> believers have.
>
>DIS-belief for one.
>
>> All you offer is defective logic and indefensible
>> assumptions. You act as if you are a mindless theist.
>
>You act as if you hate God - do you?
I despise theists like you who insist on telling lies. I don't believe
in any gods because there's no evidence for them. I don't hate gods any
more than I hate leprechauns.
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 3:48 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:51:18 -0600, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<k1olv3$sdj$6...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>
>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>
>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>
>>> To actively NOT believe is to substitute another belief system.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>
>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>
>>
>> Not believing is a statement about beliefs, but it is not a belief.
>
>Nope.
>
>It is an actve, not a passive stae.
>
>
>>> In essence disbelief is simply a negative pole belief.
>>
>> Nope. Not believing is nothing more than not believing. It is not a
>> negative belief.
>
>Sure is, especially for strident atheists.
>
>> You still have failed to offer any actual beliefs that you claim
>> believers have.
>
>DIS-belief for one.
>
>> All you offer is defective logic and indefensible
>> assumptions. You act as if you are a mindless theist.
>
>You act as if you hate God - do you?
I despise theists like you who insist on telling lies. I don't believe
in any gods because there's no evidence for them. I don't hate gods any
more than I hate leprechauns.
Message has been deleted
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 9:10:43 PM8/31/12
to
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 9:11:12 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 9:11:38 PM8/31/12
to
Message has been deleted
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:44:46 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:45 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:20:10 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:37 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:59:16 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>
>>> So you do understand that "You clearly do not have any idea how thinking
>>> works" is correct.
>>
>> It's wrong. I do understand very well how thinking works. You're a
>> sophist, and you don't know.
>
> All I see from you is assertions that you cannot defend.
All you have is lie and deny, a sad pair of deuces low.
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:20:10 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:37 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:59:16 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Different level.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is "activity
>>>>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we ?
>>>>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Different level.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you do understand that "You clearly do not have any idea how thinking
>>> works" is correct.
>>
>> It's wrong. I do understand very well how thinking works. You're a
>> sophist, and you don't know.
>
> All I see from you is assertions that you cannot defend.
All you have is lie and deny, a sad pair of deuces low.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:44:59 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:34 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:hlwdjsd-2E9D83...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>> It's far worse to do what the Republicans do--borrow and spend.
>>>
>>
>> You mean like Obama and his administration have done for the last 3+
>> years ??
>> (And we're not talking Millions or Billions. We're talking Trillions..)
>
> Please, nobody tell Obama what comes after trillion.
LOL!
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:hlwdjsd-2E9D83...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>> It's far worse to do what the Republicans do--borrow and spend.
>>>
>>
>> You mean like Obama and his administration have done for the last 3+
>> years ??
>> (And we're not talking Millions or Billions. We're talking Trillions..)
>
> Please, nobody tell Obama what comes after trillion.
LOL!
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:45:44 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
> much of a problem grasping that concept?
Because you DIS-believe in them.
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you have.
>>>
>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>> you.
>>
>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>
> We tell you that we do not believe in any gods. Why are you having so
>>>
>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>> you.
>>
>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>
> much of a problem grasping that concept?
Because you DIS-believe in them.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 31, 2012, 9:44:50 PM8/31/12
to
"skink on sink" <l...@ar.ds> wrote in message
news:k1rl0m$ok5$5...@dont-email.me...
> On 8/31/2012 3:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:19:46 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"<Sape...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jeanne Douglas"<hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hlwdjsd-230F15...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>>
>>> "Jeanne Douglas"<hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> In article<k1p5af$jr5$2...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article<k1olv3$sdj$6...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> To actively NOT believe is to substitute another belief system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article<k1olv3$sdj$6...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> To actively NOT believe is to substitute another belief system.
>>>>
>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>
>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>> activity-free.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL
>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is
>>> "activity
>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we
>>> ?
>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>
>> We are forced to explain to ignorant theists why they don't have any
>>>>
>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>> activity-free.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL
>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is
>>> "activity
>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would we
>>> ?
>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>
>> idea what they are talking about, but they are so full of their own
>> delusions that they refuse to ever use evidence, logic or defensible
>> assumptions.
>
> Look at the obvious vitriol spew from you, that's belief times ten!
Funny how they accuse others of not using logic, yet they repeatedly fail to
see the illogic of their own claims
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:46:19 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:25 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:33:42 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:52:14 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:21 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:33:42 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:52:14 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:21 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 8:29 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What is it I'm supposed to believe?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is only a statement about belief, a lack of belief.
>>>>
>>>> The statement is a statement of religious belief. Statements of
>>>> religious belief are not always affirmative.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> I'm not. I'm completely correct on this.
>
> Yet you have proven yourself totally unable to defend your claim.
Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about "God does not exist"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or more accurately "I don't believe God exists".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is, nonetheless, a religious belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is only a statement about belief, a lack of belief.
>>>>
>>>> The statement is a statement of religious belief. Statements of
>>>> religious belief are not always affirmative.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> I'm not. I'm completely correct on this.
>
> Yet you have proven yourself totally unable to defend your claim.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:48:00 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:49 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> Concession noted and accepted.
If you ever receive on I will notify Obama.
> Concession noted and accepted.
If you ever receive on I will notify Obama.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:48:24 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:48 PM, Dano wrote:
> "Donn Messenheimer" wrote in message
> news:nKKdnbGkZaUEptzN...@giganews.com...
>
> "Donn Messenheimer" wrote in message
> news:nKKdnbGkZaUEptzN...@giganews.com...
>
> On 8/31/2012 3:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>
>> I have no religious beliefs.
>
> Yes, you have.
>
>
>>
>> I have no religious beliefs.
>
> Yes, you have.
>
> ==========================================
>
> What a childish twat you are.
>
The kind you pedos love to fuck with, eh?
>
> What a childish twat you are.
>
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:48:42 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:47 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> Shifted, and lost in the process,
Is your net story.
> Shifted, and lost in the process,
Is your net story.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:49:00 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
> you.
Wow, you two dating now?
> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
> you.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:49:42 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:37 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> "You clearly do not have any idea how thinking
> works"
How long have you been an idiot?
> "You clearly do not have any idea how thinking
> works"
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 9:50:17 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:35 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> P0wned.
The proper term is "pwnd" - try and keep up.
> P0wned.
The proper term is "pwnd" - try and keep up.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 31, 2012, 9:46:21 PM8/31/12
to
"skink on sink" <l...@ar.ds> wrote in message
> On 8/31/2012 3:52 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:36:58 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 8:30 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, SaPeIsMa<Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What is the belief "system"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL
>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is
>>>>> "activity
>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would
>>>>> we ?
>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there's no activity involved in not believing. It's completely
>>>>>> activity-free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL
>>>>> If the atheists are "not believers" and that "not believing" is
>>>>> "activity
>>>>> free", then we would not be seeing any posts from atheists, now would
>>>>> we ?
>>>>> Apparently logic is foreign to you.
>>>>
>>>> That act of not believing is activity free.
>>>
>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>
>>>
>>> Not if you express the lack of belief.
>>
>> Different level. You clearly do not have any idea how thinking works.
>
> I know usenet is for all, but must we have so many morons?
Wait a sec
>
> I know usenet is for all, but must we have so many morons?
Free lunch effectively admitted that it requires no thinking to be an
atheist
That's very telling.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 31, 2012, 9:49:05 PM8/31/12
to
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fqj248tvdmu9kv0sm...@4ax.com...
> linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:34:05 -0700
> typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hlwdjsd-2E9D83...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>>> It's far worse to do what the Republicans do--borrow and spend.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean like Obama and his administration have done for the last 3+
>>> years ??
>>> (And we're not talking Millions or Billions. We're talking Trillions..)
>>
>>Please, nobody tell Obama what comes after trillion.
>
> 42? Elevendy-seven?
>>>> It's far worse to do what the Republicans do--borrow and spend.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean like Obama and his administration have done for the last 3+
>>> years ??
>>> (And we're not talking Millions or Billions. We're talking Trillions..)
>>
>>Please, nobody tell Obama what comes after trillion.
>
>
Is that before or after 57 (States)
SaPeIsMa
Aug 31, 2012, 9:50:11 PM8/31/12
to
news:vlj248d7vm0j3lnfv...@4ax.com...
> "SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:43:11 -0500
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do you Dems want to tax and spend us into bankruptcy?
> dumbest person to ever hold political office since Senator Fogbound
> retired to Dogpatch. To their eternal credit, though, the Democrats
> do feel good about themselves. Even if they can't tell if 8% is
> greater than 5%.
>
Amazingly, they got fooled not once but twice by that same "dumbest person
ever to hold political office
Now with Obama that's thrice.
> "SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:43:11 -0500
> typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>
>>
>>"Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:hlwdjsd-2E9D83...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>> In article <k1r16q$vjp$1...@dont-email.me>, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds>
>>news:hlwdjsd-2E9D83...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do you Dems want to tax and spend us into bankruptcy?
>>>
>>> It's far worse to do what the Republicans do--borrow and spend.
>>>
>>You mean like Obama and his administration have done for the last 3+ years
>>??
>>(And we're not talking Millions or Billions. We're talking Trillions..)
>
> You have to remember, the poor Democrats were bamboozled by the
>>> It's far worse to do what the Republicans do--borrow and spend.
>>>
>>You mean like Obama and his administration have done for the last 3+ years
>>??
>>(And we're not talking Millions or Billions. We're talking Trillions..)
>
> dumbest person to ever hold political office since Senator Fogbound
> retired to Dogpatch. To their eternal credit, though, the Democrats
> do feel good about themselves. Even if they can't tell if 8% is
> greater than 5%.
>
Amazingly, they got fooled not once but twice by that same "dumbest person
ever to hold political office
Now with Obama that's thrice.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 31, 2012, 9:50:47 PM8/31/12
to
"skink on sink" <l...@ar.ds> wrote in message
news:k1rl5c$ok5$9...@dont-email.me...
> On 8/31/2012 4:00 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Fucking insane cult savages.
>
> And those are just your inlaws...
And I thought he was talking about blood relatives..
SaPeIsMa
Aug 31, 2012, 9:55:46 PM8/31/12
to
"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:kph24813iec8q73ak...@4ax.com...
> I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
> regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
> the Bible.
>
> What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
> for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
> an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
> ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
> On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
> the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
> find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
> result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
> teachings?
>
> Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
> each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
> reinforcement for doing so?
>
> I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
> the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
> Bible.
>
> Thanks, Gordon
There is no standard way.
I'm an Agnostic who has read both the Bible and the Koran a couple of times
There are passages in both that have beauty and can inspire
There are passages in both that are repellent
The difference between followers of either, is that the latest portion of
the Koran is a call to arms to kill the infidel and rule the world by any
means including force (Sura 9 - which supersedes previous Suras)
The New Testament is instead a call to find a different way from the old,
preferably without the use of force.
Hasn't always worked out that way, but overall the followers of Jesus
have done far more good than evil than the followers of ANY OTHER religion.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 10:22:24 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:47:04 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
No.
It is a statement about faith. It is not a statement of faith.
I do not believe in any gods. There is no statement of faith in there. I
have no faith in any gods, there is no belief required not to believe.
It is a statement about faith. It is not a statement of faith.
I do not believe in any gods. There is no statement of faith in there. I
have no faith in any gods, there is no belief required not to believe.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:22:39 PM8/31/12
to
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:23:12 PM8/31/12
to
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 10:24:50 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:45:44 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
not believe. You seem to be confused by logic and English.
alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 5:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you have.
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>>
>> We tell you that we do not believe in any gods. Why are you having so
>> much of a problem grasping that concept?
>
>Because you DIS-believe in them.
I do not believe in gods. Nothing further. I do not have to believe to
>On 8/31/2012 5:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you have.
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>>
>> We tell you that we do not believe in any gods. Why are you having so
>> much of a problem grasping that concept?
>
>Because you DIS-believe in them.
not believe. You seem to be confused by logic and English.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:24:12 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 7:01 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
> In article<kph24813iec8q73ak...@4ax.com>,
> are inspired by other people and then go to some book of revelation, wisdom,
> religion, or lore to investigate their feelings for reinforcement or rejection.
>
You must not have read Casteneda...
> In article<kph24813iec8q73ak...@4ax.com>,
> Antares 531<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>> the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>> Bible.
>
> I don't often hear about people who are inspired by a mere book. Usually they
>
>> I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>> the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>> Bible.
>
> are inspired by other people and then go to some book of revelation, wisdom,
> religion, or lore to investigate their feelings for reinforcement or rejection.
>
You must not have read Casteneda...
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:25:05 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 6:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:27:50 -0600, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:48 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:51:18 -0600, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote in
>>> alt.atheism:
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> It is an actve, not a passive stae.
>>
>>
>>>> In essence disbelief is simply a negative pole belief.
>>>
>>> Nope. Not believing is nothing more than not believing. It is not a
>>> negative belief.
>>
>> Sure is, especially for strident atheists.
>>
>>> You still have failed to offer any actual beliefs that you claim
>>> believers have.
>>
>> DIS-belief for one.
>>
>>> All you offer is defective logic and indefensible
>>> assumptions. You act as if you are a mindless theist.
>>
>> You act as if you hate God - do you?
>
> I despise theists like you who insist on telling lies.
Sorry, I'm not a "theist"...
> I don't believe
> in any gods because there's no evidence for them. I don't hate gods any
> more than I hate leprechauns.
Oh, you and Mikey are sharing a denigration analogy, how touching.
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:27:50 -0600, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:48 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:51:18 -0600, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote in
>>> alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article<k1olv3$sdj$6...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> To actively NOT believe is to substitute another belief system.
>>>
>>> Not believing is a statement about beliefs, but it is not a belief.
>>>> On 8/30/2012 5:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:09:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article<k1olv3$sdj$6...@dont-email.me>, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 3:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>> lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atheists don't have any beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh but they do, they do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List them right here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We rely upon reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To support disbelief - itself a form of belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disbelief = belief
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, dude?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fundamental belief of crazed theists everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> To actively NOT believe is to substitute another belief system.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> It is an actve, not a passive stae.
>>
>>
>>>> In essence disbelief is simply a negative pole belief.
>>>
>>> Nope. Not believing is nothing more than not believing. It is not a
>>> negative belief.
>>
>> Sure is, especially for strident atheists.
>>
>>> You still have failed to offer any actual beliefs that you claim
>>> believers have.
>>
>> DIS-belief for one.
>>
>>> All you offer is defective logic and indefensible
>>> assumptions. You act as if you are a mindless theist.
>>
>> You act as if you hate God - do you?
>
> I despise theists like you who insist on telling lies.
Sorry, I'm not a "theist"...
> I don't believe
> in any gods because there's no evidence for them. I don't hate gods any
> more than I hate leprechauns.
Oh, you and Mikey are sharing a denigration analogy, how touching.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 10:26:37 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:10:43 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:32:56 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 4:24 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
...
>>>> Name them.
>>>
>>> You have some belief about the existence of a deity. You believe there
>>> is a deity, or you believe there is no deity, or you don't believe there
>>> is a deity. All three are possible categorizations concerning your
>>> belief regarding a deity, and that makes them religious beliefs.
>>
>> Only to those who understand neither logic nor English.
>
>Exactly.
Correct. You do not understand either one.
You also do not know how to engage in an honest discussion.
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:32:56 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 4:24 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
...
>>>> Name them.
>>>
>>> You have some belief about the existence of a deity. You believe there
>>> is a deity, or you believe there is no deity, or you don't believe there
>>> is a deity. All three are possible categorizations concerning your
>>> belief regarding a deity, and that makes them religious beliefs.
>>
>> Only to those who understand neither logic nor English.
>
>Exactly.
Correct. You do not understand either one.
You also do not know how to engage in an honest discussion.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:25:45 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 6:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:30:48 -0600, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:50 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:16:59 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>> belief; "I don't believe God exists" cannot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both are religious beliefs. "I do not believe..." is a statement about
>>>>>> your beliefs. The category is religion. "I don't believe God exists"
>>>>
>>>> A statement of belief: a statement of religious belief.
>>>
>>> A statement about belief, not of belief.
>>>
>>>> I'm better at this than you. You're not good at it at all.
>>>
>>> You have spent too much time jumping over limbo sticks with your theist
>>> friends.
>>
>> You are demonstrating hatred which equals bias, which makes you not
>> credible.
>
> You may choose to love lies equally to the truth, but I choose not to.
I may, but I will not.
You, otoh...
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:30:48 -0600, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 3:50 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:16:59 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:13 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> "I believe God does not exist" could be construed as a religious
>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:13 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> belief; "I don't believe God exists" cannot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both are religious beliefs. "I do not believe..." is a statement about
>>>>>> your beliefs. The category is religion. "I don't believe God exists"
>>>>>> is a statement of religious belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, a statement *about* your beliefs. Not *a* belief.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A statement of belief: a statement of religious belief.
>>>
>>> A statement about belief, not of belief.
>>>
>>>> I'm better at this than you. You're not good at it at all.
>>>
>>> You have spent too much time jumping over limbo sticks with your theist
>>> friends.
>>
>> You are demonstrating hatred which equals bias, which makes you not
>> credible.
>
> You may choose to love lies equally to the truth, but I choose not to.
I may, but I will not.
You, otoh...
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:26:07 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 6:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:38:04 -0600, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
>>
>> Liar.
>
> Show me.
You are opposed to religion, true?
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 10:27:19 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:11:12 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:38:04 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>> Show me.
>
>I already did.
Bye. You are ignorant, foolish, and boring. The first two can be
entertaining, as Jason sometimes proves.
<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:38:04 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>> Show me.
>
Bye. You are ignorant, foolish, and boring. The first two can be
entertaining, as Jason sometimes proves.
Fred
Aug 31, 2012, 10:26:21 PM8/31/12
to
Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>Already did.
You insane cult savages never do.
---
Google is a liberal conspiracy. That's why cultists don't use it.
>On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>Already did.
You insane cult savages never do.
---
Google is a liberal conspiracy. That's why cultists don't use it.
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:26:57 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:34:01 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 4:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:34:01 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 4:32 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:25:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-08-31, Donn Messenheimer<wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>>>
>>> We tell you that we do not believe in any gods.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget Free Lunch, he knows what's in your own mind better than
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> I know what you all believe because you tell me.
>>>
>>> We tell you that we do not believe in any gods.
>>
>> And that's a statement of religious belief.
>
> Every bit as much as bald is a hair color.
Could you nuke another analogy on your way to lying?
>
> Every bit as much as bald is a hair color.
Free Lunch
Aug 31, 2012, 10:28:14 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:46:21 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>
I can tell the difference between facts and fantasy.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>
skink on sink
Aug 31, 2012, 10:27:40 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 6:43 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0500, Antares 531
> <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> I was a believer when I read and studied the entire Bible.
Ut oh...here we go again...
> This led me
> to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too many
> errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
Iow, God is perfect, but man is not.
You ARE a believer!
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0500, Antares 531
> <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>> regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>> the Bible.
>>
>> What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>> for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>> an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>> ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>>
>> On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>> the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>> find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>> result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>> teachings?
>>
>> Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>> each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>> reinforcement for doing so?
>>
>> I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>> regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>> the Bible.
>>
>> What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>> for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>> an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>> ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>>
>> On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>> the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>> find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>> result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>> teachings?
>>
>> Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>> each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>> reinforcement for doing so?
>>
>> I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>> the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>> Bible.
>>
>> Thanks, Gordon
>> the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>> Bible.
>>
>
> I was a believer when I read and studied the entire Bible.
Ut oh...here we go again...
> This led me
> to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too many
> errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
Iow, God is perfect, but man is not.
You ARE a believer!
Jeanne Douglas
Aug 31, 2012, 10:32:45 PM8/31/12
to
In article <6js2489ect8pihb0p...@4ax.com>,
Yeah, Donnie boy disappeared from my world earlier this afternoon.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
70.66....@sjrb.ca
Aug 31, 2012, 10:35:03 PM8/31/12
to
On 28 Aug 2012, "锟給ns@minority#s" <锟給ns锟紷minority#s...@not.ca> posted some
news:TXd%r.10810$6q....@newsfe13.iad:
>
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:k1joh2$8g8$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <kKCdnVwuWpttwaDN...@giganews.com>,
From: "锟給ns@minority#s" <锟給ns锟紷minority#s...@not.ca>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,alt.california,rec.arts.tv
References: <XnsA0B1E79A8...@209.197.15.254>
<S7adnXQmqeIGyaDN...@giganews.com>
<k1jlfg$jnn$1...@panix2.panix.com> <kKCdnVwuWpttwaDNnZ2dnUVZ5s-
dn...@giganews.com> <k1joh2$8g8$1...@panix2.panix.com>
Subject: SPAMMER ------------------------------Re: No, Jesus was NOT a
"liberal"
Distribution: usa
Lines: 6
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <TXd%r.10810$6q....@newsfe13.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.75.172
X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: 1346202483 70.66.75.172 (Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:08:03 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:08:03 UTC
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:07:57 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1294
news:TXd%r.10810$6q....@newsfe13.iad:
>
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:k1joh2$8g8$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <kKCdnVwuWpttwaDN...@giganews.com>,
From: "锟給ns@minority#s" <锟給ns锟紷minority#s...@not.ca>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,alt.california,rec.arts.tv
References: <XnsA0B1E79A8...@209.197.15.254>
<S7adnXQmqeIGyaDN...@giganews.com>
<k1jlfg$jnn$1...@panix2.panix.com> <kKCdnVwuWpttwaDNnZ2dnUVZ5s-
dn...@giganews.com> <k1joh2$8g8$1...@panix2.panix.com>
Subject: SPAMMER ------------------------------Re: No, Jesus was NOT a
"liberal"
Distribution: usa
Lines: 6
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <TXd%r.10810$6q....@newsfe13.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.75.172
X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: 1346202483 70.66.75.172 (Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:08:03 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:08:03 UTC
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:07:57 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1294
Christopher A. Lee
Aug 31, 2012, 10:37:24 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
What "word" of what god, imbecile?
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>teachings?
Why are you incapableof understandig the real world and people outside
your religion, moron?
>Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>reinforcement for doing so?
>I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>Bible.
RELIGION, moron?
>Thanks, Gordon
Bubba
Aug 31, 2012, 10:49:23 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
>On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>teachings?
>
>result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>teachings?
>
>Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>reinforcement for doing so?
>
>each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>reinforcement for doing so?
>
>I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>Bible.
>
>Thanks, Gordon
>the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>Bible.
>
The bibles (there are many versions and translations) have brought
many millions of people hope in a hopeless world. People tend to
believe whatever they want to believe and don't really care whether
it's true or not. Where ignorance is bliss, etc. Too many people
prefer comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths, because the truth
hurts, the truth that evil has always prevailed in the world. Such
people want to be "saved" from the world, so they flock to any
"savior" they can find, a mythical avatar, cult leader, corporate
get-rich-quick scammer, drug dealer, fortune teller, psychiatrist,
priest, rabbi, cleric, anyone whom they believe can "save" them.
More unbiased and critical thinkers, people who question authority
regardless of its source or agenda, generally consider the fish
stories in parts of the bibles' books too big to swallow. Humans
in positions of power are the most inclined to lie. But really any
human can lie, especially if it serves their purposes to lie.
Also, there is the issue of what George Orwell called "doublethink"
in his classic Nineteen Eighty-Four. The bibles are filled with it,
and this suggests that much if not most of the bibles' books were
redacted at a minimum, or forged at a maximum -- Deuteronomy being
a glaring example of the latter. The ten commandments in Exodus 20
are a prime example of doublethink. It doesn't read "I shalt not
kill," or "I shalt not steal," etc., but reads THOU, YOU, shalt not
do these things. Humans in power are the "God" of the bibles.
It's okay for "God" to do whatever HE damn pleases! It's just not
okay for YOU to do those things. Think of "God" as government.
Government always lies to the public about everything and does so
with impunity. Try lying to the government once and see what
happens. Government always does whatever it pleases with impunity.
That's the difference between you and "God."
In defense of the bibles, however, it would be unfair to throw the
baby out with the bath water. There is a lot of interesting
reading in both old and new testaments. There's a lot of history
in the bibles that appears to be substantiated by profane sciences.
It could be that there is a reason that bibles are the most popular
books of all time, but the "infallible word of God?"
The word "God" is only a word. It's how people use it and abuse it
that makes it a profanity. "God" is a three-letter word. I call
it the "G" word. I prefer the words "natural" and "preternatural"
to describe reality, because reality always has the last word.
In closing, cemeteries are filled with ashes and corpses of people
who had accepted bibles and rejected bibles, and for who knows how
many reasons? Death is the great equalizer.
--
Bub
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 10:52:01 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:10:43 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:32:56 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 4:24 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> ...
>>>>> Name them.
>>>>
>>>> You have some belief about the existence of a deity. You believe there
>>>> is a deity, or you believe there is no deity, or you don't believe there
>>>> is a deity. All three are possible categorizations concerning your
>>>> belief regarding a deity, and that makes them religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Only to those who understand. [full stop; period]
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:10:43 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:32:56 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
>>> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 4:24 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> ...
>>>>> Name them.
>>>>
>>>> You have some belief about the existence of a deity. You believe there
>>>> is a deity, or you believe there is no deity, or you don't believe there
>>>> is a deity. All three are possible categorizations concerning your
>>>> belief regarding a deity, and that makes them religious beliefs.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Correct.
Correct.
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 10:53:09 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>
>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>
>> Already did.
>
> You insane cult savages
<chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie. You're getting pretty
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>
>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>
>> Already did.
>
> You insane cult savages
wobbly out there on the wrong side of the tracks in Glendora, aren't you?
Donn Messenheimer
Aug 31, 2012, 10:53:46 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 7:27 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:11:12 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:38:04 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
>>> alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> Show me.
>>
>> I already did.
>
> Bye. You are
Victorious.
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:11:12 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
> <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 5:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:38:04 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote in
>>> alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2012 4:31 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> I have no religious beliefs. Those are my beliefs about religion.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> Show me.
>>
>> I already did.
>
> Bye. You are
People who announce killfiling are mentally and emotionally inferior.
skink on sink
Sep 1, 2012, 12:19:59 AM9/1/12
to
skink on sink
Sep 1, 2012, 12:20:17 AM9/1/12
to
Fred
Sep 1, 2012, 12:44:06 AM9/1/12
to
Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>> Already did.
>> You insane cult savages
><chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
Because you're cultist cowards, liars who must convince yourselves
>On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>> Already did.
>> You insane cult savages
><chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
that you have gods long before you try to pretend that your intellectual
and moral superiors need them also.
Cultists deceive themselves first.
Donn Messenheimer
Sep 1, 2012, 1:15:16 AM9/1/12
to
On 8/31/2012 9:44 PM, Fred wrote:
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>>> Already did.
>>> You insane cult savages
>> <chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>
> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who
Calm down and swallow the pills, freddie.
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>>> Already did.
>>> You insane cult savages
>> <chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>
> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who
70.66....@sjrb.ca
Sep 1, 2012, 1:30:57 AM9/1/12
to
On 28 Aug 2012, "�pam�uster" <�pam�u�t...@news.ca> posted some
news:uVd%r.1568$s05...@newsfe15.iad:
>
>
From: "�pam�uster" <�pam�u�t...@news.ca>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,us.politics,misc.survivalism,alt.california,rec.arts.tv
References: <XnsA0B1E79A8...@209.197.15.254>
<I5CdnRk3Iq30t6TN...@giganews.com>
<XnsA0BA9B200E043...@216.196.121.131>
<6_ednephRcuOf6bN...@giganews.com>
<XnsA0BCB4F3450E1...@216.196.121.131>
<Y_ydnTl8is8ZYKbN...@giganews.com>
<XnsA0BCD3E59654...@216.196.121.131>
<YeWdnWE0ee1Yo6HN...@giganews.com>
<E0Y_r.855$rC1...@newsfe16.iad>
<fsednZOUOfwIlKDN...@posted.sonicnet>
<slrnk3q30i....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<9pudnTeVL_I6kKDN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3q3mk....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<iYOdnbsZd5n_jaDN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3q4dm....@usenet.home.b0h0.com> <k1j54f$f77$1@dont-
email.me> <slrnk3q90g....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<oKidnX9tjYo9u6DN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3q9t8....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<msWdnY4M4sxJtKDN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3qanl....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
Subject: SPAMMER FOR KILLFILE ---------------------------
Re: Where do rights come from? Evolution is the answer.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.75.172
X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: 1346202330 70.66.75.172 (Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:05:30 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:05:30 UTC
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:05:24 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 2102
news:uVd%r.1568$s05...@newsfe15.iad:
>
>
From: "�pam�uster" <�pam�u�t...@news.ca>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,us.politics,misc.survivalism,alt.california,rec.arts.tv
References: <XnsA0B1E79A8...@209.197.15.254>
<I5CdnRk3Iq30t6TN...@giganews.com>
<XnsA0BA9B200E043...@216.196.121.131>
<6_ednephRcuOf6bN...@giganews.com>
<XnsA0BCB4F3450E1...@216.196.121.131>
<Y_ydnTl8is8ZYKbN...@giganews.com>
<XnsA0BCD3E59654...@216.196.121.131>
<YeWdnWE0ee1Yo6HN...@giganews.com>
<E0Y_r.855$rC1...@newsfe16.iad>
<fsednZOUOfwIlKDN...@posted.sonicnet>
<slrnk3q30i....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<9pudnTeVL_I6kKDN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3q3mk....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<iYOdnbsZd5n_jaDN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3q4dm....@usenet.home.b0h0.com> <k1j54f$f77$1@dont-
email.me> <slrnk3q90g....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<oKidnX9tjYo9u6DN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3q9t8....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
<msWdnY4M4sxJtKDN...@giganews.com>
<slrnk3qanl....@usenet.home.b0h0.com>
Subject: SPAMMER FOR KILLFILE ---------------------------
Re: Where do rights come from? Evolution is the answer.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 11
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <uVd%r.1568$s05...@newsfe15.iad>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.75.172
X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: 1346202330 70.66.75.172 (Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:05:30 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:05:30 UTC
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:05:24 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 2102
thomas p.
Sep 1, 2012, 1:42:16 AM9/1/12
to
"skink on sink" <l...@ar.ds> skrev i meddelelsen
news:k1rrql$nu3$4...@dont-email.me...
The god described by the Christian religion (and others) is claimed to be
perfect. A contradiction is being pointed out. Do you see now?
>
> You ARE a believer!
You are not reading for comprehension.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:k1rrql$nu3$4...@dont-email.me...
perfect. A contradiction is being pointed out. Do you see now?
>
> You ARE a believer!
You are not reading for comprehension.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
gordo
Sep 1, 2012, 1:55:26 AM9/1/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
>On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>teachings?
>
>Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>reinforcement for doing so?
>
>I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>Bible.
>
>Thanks, Gordon
From a scientific point of view there is little gain from it. It
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
>regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
>the Bible.
>
>What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
>for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
>an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
>ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
>On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
>the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
>find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
>result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
>teachings?
>
>Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
>each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
>reinforcement for doing so?
>
>I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
>the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
>Bible.
>
>Thanks, Gordon
could be argued that their is historical value to it. For inspiration?
Well Catholics are inspired by an image of Mary maybe more so than
the bible. This makes protestants go nuts along with Muslims who also
have similar sacred scriptures that inspires them. The Jews also have
their bible but reject the New Testament. They are all inspired by
myths half truths as are all aboriginal people around the globe.
If I say anything against the Christian, Muslim ,Jews belief in their
sacred texts I might put my own life,family or country in jeopardy. I
am inspired when people or politicians say be good to each other. I
don't need a book of myths for that. I hope my short message was
inspiring.
Fred
Sep 1, 2012, 2:04:48 AM9/1/12
to
Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>On 8/31/2012 9:44 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>>>> Already did.
>>>> You insane cult savages
>>> <chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>>
>> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who
Try again, rightard:
>On 8/31/2012 9:44 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>>>> Already did.
>>>> You insane cult savages
>>> <chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>>
>> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who
Message has been deleted
Donn Messenheimer
Sep 1, 2012, 2:15:57 AM9/1/12
to
On 8/31/2012 11:04 PM, Fred wrote:
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 9:44 PM, Fred wrote:
>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>>>>> Already did.
>>>>> You insane cult savages
>>>> <chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>>>
>>> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who
>
> Try again, rightard:
Nope; you got that wrong, just as you get everything wrong.
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 9:44 PM, Fred wrote:
>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
>>>>>> Already did.
>>>>> You insane cult savages
>>>> <chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>>>
>>> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who
>
> Try again, rightard:
Yap
Sep 1, 2012, 2:45:32 AM9/1/12
to
On Sep 1, 10:01 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SapeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:kph24813iec8q73ak...@4ax.com...
> I'm an Agnostic who has read both the Bible and the Koran a couple of times
> There are passages in both that have beauty and can inspire
> There are passages in both that are repellent
> The difference between followers of either, is that the latest portion of
> the Koran is a call to arms to kill the infidel and rule the world by any
> means including force (Sura 9 - which supersedes previous Suras)
> The New Testament is instead a call to find a different way from the old,
> preferably without the use of force.
> Hasn't always worked out that way, but overall the followers of Jesus
> have done far more good than evil than the followers of ANY OTHER religion.
Your ;last para is just a pure lie from your ass !
Did you check if some of your ancestors were victims in the crusaders,
inquisition and witch burning misdeeds which killed millions of
innocent?
The Buddhism has never done anything bad from day one till now, let
alone evil.
> "Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:kph24813iec8q73ak...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
> > regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
> > the Bible.
>
> > What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
> > for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
> > an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
> > ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
> > On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
> > the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
> > find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
> > result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
> > teachings?
>
> > Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
> > each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
> > reinforcement for doing so?
>
> > I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
> > the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
> > Bible.
>
> > Thanks, Gordon
>
> There is no standard way.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would like some honest, straight forward comments from others
> > regarding the general interpretation and acceptance or rejection of
> > the Bible.
>
> > What I'm asking is, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible
> > for the purpose of learning and accepting the Bible's teachings, find
> > an abundance of information and inspiration that will result in an
> > ever increasing level of confidence that the Bible is the Word of God?
>
> > On the flip side, can a person with a mind-set to read the Bible with
> > the intention of justifying their rejection of the Bible in general,
> > find an equivalent abundance of information and inspiration that will
> > result in an ever increasing level of rejection of the Bible and its
> > teachings?
>
> > Is this whole process a closely balanced feather edge matter in which
> > each person can go their own way and find ample justification and
> > reinforcement for doing so?
>
> > I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for information regarding
> > the way others perceive the process of accepting or rejecting the
> > Bible.
>
> > Thanks, Gordon
>
> I'm an Agnostic who has read both the Bible and the Koran a couple of times
> There are passages in both that have beauty and can inspire
> There are passages in both that are repellent
> The difference between followers of either, is that the latest portion of
> the Koran is a call to arms to kill the infidel and rule the world by any
> means including force (Sura 9 - which supersedes previous Suras)
> The New Testament is instead a call to find a different way from the old,
> preferably without the use of force.
> Hasn't always worked out that way, but overall the followers of Jesus
> have done far more good than evil than the followers of ANY OTHER religion.
Your ;last para is just a pure lie from your ass !
Did you check if some of your ancestors were victims in the crusaders,
inquisition and witch burning misdeeds which killed millions of
innocent?
The Buddhism has never done anything bad from day one till now, let
alone evil.
Yap
Sep 1, 2012, 2:49:53 AM9/1/12
to
The religion cults get their vast fortunes from tithers, depriving the
money into poverty eradication.
Of course suckers like you think that is OK or not his business.
Yap
Sep 1, 2012, 2:51:11 AM9/1/12
to
On Sep 1, 10:27 am, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 6:43 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0500, Antares 531
> > <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
> On 8/31/2012 6:43 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0500, Antares 531
>
> You ARE a believer!
Yap
Sep 1, 2012, 2:55:41 AM9/1/12
to
On Sep 1, 2:08 pm, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <5041a035$0$56787$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
And you really have an lazy eye issue?
>
> --
> My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <5041a035$0$56787$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> This led me
> > >> to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too many
> > >> errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
>
> > > Iow, God is perfect, but man is not.
>
> > The god described by the Christian religion (and others) is claimed to be
> > perfect. A contradiction is being pointed out. Do you see now?
>
> Yes. You have daddy issues.
>
> > >> This led me
> > >> to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too many
> > >> errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
>
> > > Iow, God is perfect, but man is not.
>
> > The god described by the Christian religion (and others) is claimed to be
> > perfect. A contradiction is being pointed out. Do you see now?
>
And you really have an lazy eye issue?
>
> --
> My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
Kevin Spencer
Sep 1, 2012, 3:17:23 AM9/1/12
to
In article <w4ednewgALILD9zN...@posted.sonicnet>
overestimating their average intelligence.
rep...@scientology.org (Fred) wrote:
>
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
> >> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
> >>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> >>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
> >>>>> Not necessarily.
> >>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
> >>> Already did.
> >> You insane cult savages
> ><chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>
> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who must convince yourselves
> that you have gods long before you try to pretend that your intellectual
> and moral superiors need them also.
>
> Cultists deceive themselves first.
Democrats are cultists. They deceive themselves by
>
> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >On 8/31/2012 7:26 PM, Fred wrote:
> >> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >>> On 8/31/2012 2:52 PM, Fred wrote:
> >>>> Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/31/2012 9:23 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> >>>>>> "Not believing is the absence of belief.
> >>>>> Not necessarily.
> >>>> Ah, interesting, How about offering a "for instance?"
> >>> Already did.
> >> You insane cult savages
> ><chortle> You're off your meds again, freddie.
>
> Because you're cultist cowards, liars who must convince yourselves
> that you have gods long before you try to pretend that your intellectual
> and moral superiors need them also.
>
> Cultists deceive themselves first.
overestimating their average intelligence.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Aunt Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Other of the Borg
Sep 1, 2012, 4:03:20 AM9/1/12
to
In article <72393f48-7dec-4aa3...@k9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
You serve the god to be whether you realize it or not.
--
Aren't you special. Tell me your problems.
--
Aren't you special. Tell me your problems.
Andrew Wilson
Sep 1, 2012, 5:08:13 AM9/1/12
to
On Aug 31, 1:29 pm, "tho...@antispam.ham" <tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu>
wrote:
> This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
> Terms Of Use <laugh...@u.kook> writes:
>
> 11> Newsgroups:
> alt.atheism,alt.california,alt.usenet.kooks,can.politics,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.paul-
> derbyshire.fix.it.now
>
> 11> A kook screed amounting to two #12's, one #6, one #7, and a fart
> in the wind.
>
> What does your screed have to do with OS/2, laughing?
>
> 11> You stupid cunt.
>
> What does your stupidity have to do with OS/2, laughing?
Hey, Nadegda! It's another example of a stopped clock being right
twice a day!
<cackle>
wrote:
> This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
> Terms Of Use <laugh...@u.kook> writes:
>
> 11> Newsgroups:
> alt.atheism,alt.california,alt.usenet.kooks,can.politics,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.paul-
> derbyshire.fix.it.now
>
> 11> A kook screed amounting to two #12's, one #6, one #7, and a fart
> in the wind.
>
> What does your screed have to do with OS/2, laughing?
>
> 11> You stupid cunt.
>
> What does your stupidity have to do with OS/2, laughing?
Hey, Nadegda! It's another example of a stopped clock being right
twice a day!
<cackle>
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
Sep 1, 2012, 5:23:20 AM9/1/12
to
Andrew Wilson <awils...@gmail.com> writes:
4> Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.california,alt.usenet.kooks,can.politics,comp.os.os2.advocacy
4> Hey, Nadegda! It's another example of a stopped clock being right
4> twice a day!
What does your analogy have to do with OS/2, Wilson?
4> <cackle>
What does your cackling have to do with OS/2, Wilson?
4> Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.california,alt.usenet.kooks,can.politics,comp.os.os2.advocacy
4> Hey, Nadegda! It's another example of a stopped clock being right
4> twice a day!
What does your analogy have to do with OS/2, Wilson?
4> <cackle>
What does your cackling have to do with OS/2, Wilson?
Yap
Sep 1, 2012, 6:51:11 AM9/1/12
to
On Sep 1, 3:44 pm, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <c44cf74e-b6a5-49e7-a397-1dddbdfba...@rg9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> human?
All fathers of human are human being.
No body including Adam/Eve come from pixie.
And this A/E pair was a made up ........
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <c44cf74e-b6a5-49e7-a397-1dddbdfba...@rg9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 2:08 pm, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
> > <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <5041a035$0$56787$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> > > "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> This led me
> > > > >> to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too
> > > > >> many
> > > > >> errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
>
> > > > > Iow, God is perfect, but man is not.
>
> > > > The god described by the Christian religion (and others) is claimed to be
> > > > perfect. A contradiction is being pointed out. Do you see now?
>
> > > Yes. You have daddy issues.
>
> > And you really have an lazy eye issue?
>
> Are you also scarred from when you discoverred your father was just another
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 2:08 pm, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
> > <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <5041a035$0$56787$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> > > "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> This led me
> > > > >> to reject the claims made about the Bible because it is full of too
> > > > >> many
> > > > >> errors for God to have had anything to do with it.
>
> > > > > Iow, God is perfect, but man is not.
>
> > > > The god described by the Christian religion (and others) is claimed to be
> > > > perfect. A contradiction is being pointed out. Do you see now?
>
> > > Yes. You have daddy issues.
>
> > And you really have an lazy eye issue?
>
> human?
All fathers of human are human being.
No body including Adam/Eve come from pixie.
And this A/E pair was a made up ........
SaPeIsMa
Sep 1, 2012, 7:14:24 AM9/1/12
to
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63594dde-6e1f-4c4c...@kn3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> Did you check if some of your ancestors were victims in the crusaders,
> inquisition and witch burning misdeeds which killed millions of
> innocent?
>
As to the inquisition, you ignorant dolt, records show that it's victims are
under 10,000
> The Buddhism has never done anything bad from day one till now, let
> alone evil.
Why do you need to demonstrate your ignorance.
SaPeIsMa
Sep 1, 2012, 7:15:47 AM9/1/12
to
news:48382dcf-44f8-403a...@f4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...
Well, by that definition the simple fact that it created you would be proof
Except naturally, you were "created" when your parents repeatedly
dropped you on your head..
Except naturally, you were "created" when your parents repeatedly
dropped you on your head..
SaPeIsMa
Sep 1, 2012, 7:21:52 AM9/1/12
to
news:72393f48-7dec-4aa3...@k9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com...
What makes you imagine that those moneys
1) do not go into "poverty eradication"
2) Would go into that if now tithed to churches
3) that throwing money at "poverty eradication" (whatever that is) even
has a modicum of chance of succeeding
Maybe you should stick to facts instead of spouting stupid propaganda for
useful idiots.
1) do not go into "poverty eradication"
2) Would go into that if now tithed to churches
3) that throwing money at "poverty eradication" (whatever that is) even
has a modicum of chance of succeeding
Maybe you should stick to facts instead of spouting stupid propaganda for
useful idiots.
Message has been deleted
Yap
Sep 1, 2012, 8:14:22 AM9/1/12
to
On Sep 1, 7:25 pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SapeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The vast fortunes solicited by the cults does not distribute anything
in Africa where there are wide spread poverty and hunger. There are
missionaries all over the continent as it is now.
Those televangelists bought villas, fleets of cars and jet planes
opening.....is there a single cent they send to Africa?
>
> Maybe you should stick to facts instead of spouting stupid propaganda for
> useful idiots.
So, your idea of fact is non-existent.\
> "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
in Africa where there are wide spread poverty and hunger. There are
missionaries all over the continent as it is now.
Those televangelists bought villas, fleets of cars and jet planes
opening.....is there a single cent they send to Africa?
>
> Maybe you should stick to facts instead of spouting stupid propaganda for
> useful idiots.
Yap
Sep 1, 2012, 8:16:05 AM9/1/12
to
On Sep 1, 7:35 pm, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <c90599c8-e257-4b81-86d9-a290ebb97...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
> So you have daddy and mommy issues.
No.......
If you have A/E as the first pair of human, then you would have daddy/
mommy issue.
This existed in the White society for quite a long time now.
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <c90599c8-e257-4b81-86d9-a290ebb97...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
No.......
If you have A/E as the first pair of human, then you would have daddy/
mommy issue.
This existed in the White society for quite a long time now.
HVAC
Sep 1, 2012, 8:33:06 AM9/1/12
to
On 8/31/2012 12:16 PM, skink on sink wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 4:28 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 1:37 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't doubt a near death experience might have occurred,
>>>>
>>>> Fine, have one of your own, bye.
>>>
>>> Tricky one to engineer.
>>
>>
>> Especially if you want to take a few people with you.
>>
> Feel free to depart any time, shitwind.
Only if you go first.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
> On 8/31/2012 4:28 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 1:37 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't doubt a near death experience might have occurred,
>>>>
>>>> Fine, have one of your own, bye.
>>>
>>> Tricky one to engineer.
>>
>>
>> Especially if you want to take a few people with you.
>>
> Feel free to depart any time, shitwind.
Only if you go first.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
HVAC
Sep 1, 2012, 8:34:30 AM9/1/12
to
On 8/31/2012 12:17 PM, skink on sink wrote:
>
>>
>> If you look at the site it quickly becomes clear that it a shill site
>> set up to cash in
>
> You're threatened by the unknown, obviously...
>
> It is understandable.
The only think that is unknown is how much money will they take you for.
>
>>
>> If you look at the site it quickly becomes clear that it a shill site
>> set up to cash in
>
> You're threatened by the unknown, obviously...
>
> It is understandable.
The only think that is unknown is how much money will they take you for.
HVAC
Sep 1, 2012, 8:36:34 AM9/1/12
to
On 8/31/2012 12:15 PM, skink on sink wrote:
>
>>
>> We need Painus in this discussion. That'll fix it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You need an icepick in the temple.
LOL...To match the one I have in my back?
>
>>
>> We need Painus in this discussion. That'll fix it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You need an icepick in the temple.
LOL...To match the one I have in my back?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages