Re: James Cameron's Avatar - a Stunning Achievement
fasgnadh
> On Dec 24, 10:17 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote innews:45c6d5f6-6128-4ce1...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 11:46 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
>>>> innews:e6791db9-1b6d-4ca1-bafd-6
>>> f679c2d1...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
>>>> om:
>>>>> On Dec 21, 1:04 pm, Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> My problem with "Avatar" is not politics -- it is aliens who
>>>>>> look exactly like humans, down to facial expressions. In a
>>>>>> low-budget, no- CGI production like "Star Trek" it is
>>>>>> excusable -- but "Avatar" has entire ecosystem of
>>>>>> CGI-rendered alien animals, ferchrissake! Couldn't they come
>>>>>> up with somewhat PLAUSIBLE aliens, which make sense in the
>>>>>> context?
>>>>> I didn't have a problem with the aliens they looked fine to
>>>>> me. It woulda been kinda hard for Jake to fall for something
>>>>> which looked like a spider or an octopod, dontcha think?!
>>>>> The beauty of the system Cameron used was that they actors
>>>>> had cameras attached which monitored their facial expressions
>>>>> precisely so the characters *would* look emotive. It worked
>>>>> a treat. I've seen several remarks on the I'net about how
>>>>> much Sigourney Weaver's avatar looked like her (if somewhat
>>>>> unnecessarily sexed up! LoL!
>>>>> But from an evolutionary PoV, it's a lot harder to imagine
>>>>> how an organism would develop into the tightly-knit society
>>>>> the N'avi had without being able to emote facially.
>>>> It wasn't that the emote that seems to be the complaint, it's
>>>> that their emotions are absolutely indentical to ours. Which is
>>>> a valid complaint, if you don't realize that the smurfs are
>>>> not, in fact, aliens, but merely non-whites being oppressed by
>>>> Evil White Guys. A common literary trick in sf, after all.
>>> Ha! How can we be so sure their facial expressions wouldn't be
>>> the same as ours,
>> It's the way to bet.
>>
>>> given that both their physiology and
>>> physiognomy is very similar?
>> Another technical nit.
>>
>>> Bearing teeth is considered a
>>> threatening gesture throughout the animal kingdom when
>>> accompanied by one sound (a growl) and a laughing gesture when
>>> accompanied by a different sound. Maybe we'd be surprised at
>>> how alike we are if we ever do encounter social bipedal aliens.
>> I recall some research a few months ago that indicated that when
>> your dog has that hang-dog look, after doing something bad, it
>> isn't because he feels guilty at getting caught, it's just that you
>> notice it more when you want him to feel guilty. In other words, we
>> notice what we interpret to be similar emotions in other species,
>> even when there's zero basis for believing those emotions are
>> really there.
>>
>> In short, given our experience with interpreting facial expressions
>> among animals of our own world, we likely *would* see very human-
>> like emotions in aliens. And be utterly incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too
>>>>>> human-like, they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet
>>>>>> where every large animal is six-limbed. How did they ever
>>>>>> evolve?
>>>>> That's actually a good point. I had a problem with that, but
>>>>> it's one of those things you either let nag your ass all thru
>>>>> the movie or you let it go. I chose to let it go and enjoy
>>>>> whatever it was Cameron wanted to show me.
>>>> Accept that it's fantasy, and all those complaints disappear.
>>>> Does it really have floating mountains?
>>> Indeed! They're great. But I disagree that it's so
>>> irretrievably lost in fantasy.
>> Floating. Mountains.
>>
>>> As the movie shows, it's
>>> possible to levitate objects - the last thing I read that had
>>> this done to it was a mouse - and the rocks don't levitate
>>> everywhere, only in this one location where a special mineral
>>> exists which happens to be both the same mineral the corporate
>>> goons are seeking and a sacred place to the N'avi.
>>
>> Floating. Mountains.
Please stop harping on Physics, Bukakke is trying to
explain to you the possibilities in a 'sacred place'
to the N'avi.
If you don't believe in Floating Mountains how will
you ever understand water changing into wine! B^D
There is an imaginary planet called 'Earth' where
scientists can do what humans have long though
impossible, transmute lead into gold.. it just takes
an enormous amount of ENERGY, far more that Bukakke is
putting into defending her beliefs in COMPLETE FANTASY!
This is PRICELESS!
Chesterton was RIGHT, just as Jung was! B^D
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
� they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:
"Among all my patients in the second half of life, that is, over
thirty-five, there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because
he had lost that which the living religions of every age
have given their followers, and none of them has really
been healed who did not regain his religious outlook."
-Carl G. Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul
>>
>>
>>> There are special gravitational conditions here, too, since
>>> Pandora isn't so much a planet as a moon orbiting a huge gas
>>> giant. Not that they make any issue out of that in the movie
>>> which I found slightly distracting
>>
>> Which is to say, more outright fantasy known to conflict with the
>> physical laws of the univers.
>>
>> Or do you imagine we could find floating mountains on our own moon?
B^D
The silence is telling!
Atheists always RUN from the truth! Especially Bukakke, challenge
her script and you see how brittle she is.
>>>> And does anything *really* consider *that* science fiction,
>>>> rather than fantasy?
>>>>
>>>>> Besides, our lineage didn't start out exactly like us. Maybe
>>>>> the second pair of arms got lost as the N'avi went thru
>>>>> their arboreal stage! I'm actually waiting on the people at
>>>>> www.scienceblogs.comtostart in on Avatar, but they seem
>>>>> peculiarly unheedful of it at present.
It's like the lonely cult membber feeling misunderstood and ignored! B^D
>>>> Possibly because it's obviously fantasy. One might as well
>>>> complain that elves in LotR have pointy ears.
>>> I've seen humans with pointy ears!
>> Clearly, then, real life is science fiction.
It certainly is to Bukakke. She has made a fetish of pseudo science.
I attribute it to the time she has spent with Creationists,
it has unhinged her, more than slightly.
She posts endless tracts on Evolution as if it was an atheist
discovery, ignoring that it is, for example taught in every
Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Muslim school
in this country! B^D
She tilts at windmills.. it is a mark of the poor atheists
who have to deal with American fundies... they become what they
oppose.. dogmatists.
>>
>>>>>> One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools,
>>>>>> purpose- built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to
>>>>>> interact with humans -- and to push humans' emotional
>>>>>> buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their ancestry except
>>>>>> what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
>>>>>> convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the
>>>>>> movie's overall moral message.
>>>>> There ya go! Now you're getting into it! LoL!
>>>>> Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess
>>>>> we'll have to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of
>>>>> weeks to see if it's making enough that he can go ahead with
>>>>> part two.
>>>> It's already done nearly $300 million at the box office. There
>>>> will be as many sequals as Cameron wants, until one of them
>>>> loses money.
>>> I hope so. This movie was great.
>> It does seem to be very popular, and even the ads make it clear
>> it's a tremendous technical achievement. But it's also clear that
>> "Dances With Smurfs" is a reasonable summary of the plot, and I'm
>> not fond of the "naive, helpless, but morally superior natives
>> oppressed by Evil White Guys(tm) who can only be saved by . . . a
>> reformed Evil White Guy(tm)" stories, and I make a practice of
>> avoiding anything that intensely overhyped.
Stereotypes are ideal for Bukakke. She already lives in a two
dimensional world.
> I do apologize. My mistake
THat's ok, no one expects much from you.
> I thought you were someone with whom I
> could have an intelligent exchange.
But yuu are simply incapable of an intelligent exchange,
as your post reveals.
Floating Mountains!
Good Lord! B^D
> Do please forgive my error.
I'm sure he will, unlike dogmatic militant atheists Christians do that!
> Budiokka
Still running from the inconvenient truth that atheists can't deal with!
That is the role of FANTASY in your life!
I bet you like Vampire movies too!!! B^D
Typical atheist immaturity.
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
fasgnadh
<unsnip the FACTS the gutless, lying atheists always snip and run from>
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Budikka666 demonstrates atheists will believe anything: B^D
>>> On Dec 24, 11:51 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>>>> : Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com>
>>>> : Are you really so fucking stupid that you think that's the same thing?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I really am so stupid that I think keeping a large mass of stone
>>>> from falling to the ground is the same thing as keeping a large mass of
>>>> stone from falling to the ground.
>>
>>
>> You are wasting your time with Bukakke, she doesn't believe in GRAVITY!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA
>>
>> And she will go to great lengths to convince you that non-gravity
>> COULD exist in another part of the universe, especially if it's
>> on an imaginary planet in a movie.. the CLOSEST Bukakke ever comes to
>> reality! B^]
>>
>> Oh, and don't ask her why she thinks non-gravity exists on Pandora
>> (despite any evidence), but God can't exist anywhere in the Universe,
>> despite the historical evidence that the Great and enduring
>> Civilisations on our planet are built on revealed religion,
>> and EVERY Godless atheist regime has been a catastrophic shithole...
>>
>> no wonder the ranting bitch lives in a FANTASY WORLD of escapism: B^D
>>
>>> GUCS thinks it's utterly impossible. I haven't seen his peer-reviewed
>>> paper on the physics for that,
>>
>> You are unaware of Gravity? Or you think it's a local phenomena? B^D
>>
>> You must have been educated in some atheist shithole school in
>> the USSR or Maoist China!
>>
>>> but if he says it's impossible,
>>
>> I bet you swallowed Star Trek spaceships that went WOOSH in space! B^D
>>
>> > then
>>> you gotta know he cannot possibly be wrong because he knows
>>> *everything*! LoL!
>>
>> Oh look, Bukakke is miffed and thinks someone is trying to usurp her
>> debating position! B^D
>>
>>
>>> Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the phsyics
>>> of this planet
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAA
>>
>> CLASSIC!
>>
>> Bukakke is arguing that no one knows about the physics of an
>> imaginary, movie world!
>>
>> Just like she knows nothing about the REAL ONE! B^D
>>
>> Lets forget that she doesn't know anything about the existence
>> of a deity in the Universe..
>>
>> After all.. she has no PEER REVIEWED science on every corner of it!
>>
>> In fact, she can't even prove there are no corners! B^D
>>
>> What a hoot!
>>
>>
>> > nor of the materials that were fapparently "floating" -
>>> becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>>> anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>>> can.any.rocks.float.
>>
>> Can you rant more slowly, you have become completely incoherent!
>>
>> "Frapparently" you are under the illusion that rocks float above
>> the surface of large gravitational masses, such as PLANETS,
>> "becasuer tunder no circumstnaces" are you an intelligent life form!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
>>
>>
>>> He's making the utterly blind assumption that these rocks, their
>>> chemistry, the gravitational influences, and the effects of this
>>> mineral cannot possibly have any effect on *anything*. Don't even
>>> *try* to bring up pumice stone floating on the ocean after a volcanic
>>> eruption
>>
>> I don't think he will, he's not as desperate as you! B^D
>>
>> > I made the awful mistake
>>
>> You frequently do, you mad ranting bitch! B^D
>>
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>> Still running after all these months! B^D
<end unsnip, revealing how gutless atheist liars can't deal with the FACTS>
All the gutless atheists can do is SNIP AND RUN and LIE:
> At least we know it is fantasy unlike you and your religious beliefs.
I'm an agnostic, you are just another cowardly atheist liar and slanderer.
And the whole point of the thread is that it reveals that moron Bukakke
BELIEVES all that fantasy BULLSHIT!
" no wonder the ranting bitch lives in a FANTASY WORLD of escapism" B^D
Chesterton was RIGHT, just as Jung was! B^D
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
� they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:
"Among all my patients in the second half of life, that is, over
thirty-five, there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because
he had lost that which the living religions of every age
have given their followers, and none of them has really
been healed who did not regain his religious outlook."
-Carl G. Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul
And no wonder the atheists snip the truth and RUN AWAY, shouting their
pathetic lies and slander! B^]
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Fasgnadh is till running from the inconvenient truths that he can't deal
with! One of them being that Budikka has his number
Another of these being that there is no more proof for the existence of
any one god than for the existence of any other god, or for the
non-existence of all gods for that matter.
Fasgnadh's support of all theisms indiscriminantly is the role of
multitheistic FANTASY in his life!
>
I bet he likes Vampire movies too!!!
Typical theist immaturity.
John Cook
fasgnadh
Executive summary so no one misses the logical implications
of Bukakke's position for atheism: (full context, after
Bukakke's Snip and Run fixed, maintained below)
# Let me show you how my mockery of your stance on floating
# mountains reveals the HYPOCRISY of atheism:
#
# How does your support for floating mountains reflect on
# your position on the non-Existence of God, Bukakke?
#
# > that we're not in any position to declare such a thing
# > utterly impossible since we don't know enough
# > to make such a declaration, but that we *do* know enough
# > about physics to know that it's entirely possible
So atheism is invalid when it tries to deny the possibility of God
without conclusive evidence, and fasgnad was right when he said
this atheist postion is untenable:
The only rational positions remaining are agnosticism (my intellectual
stance) and theism (a belief, like Bukakke's that floating mountains,
or God, COULD exist ;-)
B^]
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Budikka666 demonstrates atheists will believe anything: B^D
>>> On Dec 24, 11:51 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>>>> : Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com>
>>>> : Are you really so fucking stupid that you think that's the same thing?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I really am so stupid that I think keeping a large mass of stone
>>>> from falling to the ground is the same thing as keeping a large mass of
>>>> stone from falling to the ground.
>>
>>
>> You are wasting your time with Bukakke, she doesn't believe in GRAVITY!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA
>
>
> Another of your lies.
That's the trouble with you rabid dogmatists, you don't recognise
RIDICULE when it bites you on the arse!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA
I predicted your insane obsession with PROJECTING your BELIEFS
and your inability to PROVE any of them, and you have done
exactly that:
>> And she will go to great lengths to convince you that non-gravity
>> COULD exist in another part of the universe, especially if it's
>> on an imaginary planet in a movie.. the CLOSEST Bukakke ever comes to
>> reality! B^]
>>
> But I'll let that pass,
Of course, you ignore the facts and give us more of your LIES,
and EMPTY ad hom and abuse:
> as I will your evident obesssion with imbibing semen.
Right away we see you calling me a liar when the thread shows you
denying gravity and then you project your habits onto me, without
any supporting evidence whatsoever!
You are an irrational, deceitful abusive lunatic, and
you have run away from at least SEVEN unmet challenges
from me, deal with them before I eviscerate your latest
illogical claptrap:
@@@ start Previous Challenges unmet by Bukakke @@@@@@@@@@@
From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Chickenshit Bukakke is still running from
SEVEN UNMET CHALLENGES! B^D
was Re: Bukakke is *Still* Determinedly Cowardly SCUM
Message-ID: <aloYm.64260$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:49:10 GMT
Chickenshit Budikka666 snipped everything and RAN AWAY, as usual:
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>
>>> Unmet challenge #1
>>>
>>> The challenge I offered you in this thread:
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/8e03d6bb01bb35c5?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>>
>> where I challenged you for proof that 12 year old Alexei,
>> terrorised, tortured and murdered, was a 'despot?
>>
>>> only to see you RUN AWAY.
Day 236 and Chickenshit Bukakke is STILL Running from this
unmet challenge:
>> # Subject: Atheist admits their murder of a 13 year old,
>> # claims it was because he was a 'Despot' - Where's the Proof?
>> # was Re: Atheist infanticide - "most horrific political crime of
>> the 20th century"
>> # From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.politics.communism,
>> # uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.religion,alt.politics.democrats,
>> # alt.politics.republicans
>> # Message-ID: <jcBKl.7665$y61...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> # Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 11:39:59 GMT
>> #
>> #
>> # Budikka admits they murdered a 12 year old, claims he deserved it:
8^o
>> # >> Seon demonstrated his disinterest in Atheist crimes against
humanity:
>> # >>> fasgnadh wrote:
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> "Russia exonerates Tsar Nicholas II
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> The Russian supreme court has ruled that the country's
>> # >>>> last tsar and his family must be recognised as victims
>> # >>>> of Soviet repression 90 years after they were executed
>> # >>>> by a Bolshevik firing squad.
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
>> # >>>>
>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3115053/Russia-exonerates-Tsar-Nicholas-II.html
>>
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>>
>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
>>
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> Tsar Nicholas II with his wife Tsarina Alexandra
>> # >>>> (background), the Tsaravitch (2nd from right)
>> # >>>> and his four daughters Photo: PA
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> In an unexpected ruling, the court in Moscow declared
>> # >>>> that Nicholas II and the royal family had been killed
>> # >>>> illegally and are entitled to legal rehabilitation
>> # >>>> by the state.
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> The decision brings to a close a decade-long campaign
>> # >>>> by the tsar's descendants to force the state to admit
>> # >>>> culpability for what many Russians regard as the single
>> # >>>> most horrific political crime of the 20th century."
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> The children saw their father shot and "were stabbed
>> # >>>> with bayonets and then shot at close range in the head" by
>> # >>>> the big Brave atheists.
>> # >>>> Alexei was 13 and Anastasia 17
>> # >>>> - Massie, R, The Romanovs The Final Chapter, 6
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> "It also represents a symbolic end to Russia's often
>> # >>>> tortured process of addressing the repressions of
>> # >>>> the Soviet era."
>> # >>>>
>> # >>>> Nothing as tortured as the atheist holocaust deniers
>> # >>>> trying to deny that the USSR was an atheist state! B^p
>> # >>>>
>> ...
>>
>> # > Hey fasgnadh, how does the Russian Royal family with a handful of
>> # > children - who were Christians but behaved like despots
>> #
>> # You claim that you atheists killed a 13 year old because he
>> # was a DESPOT???
>> #
>> # WHERE'S YOUR PROOF, you vile murdering bastard!!!
>> #
>> # THE Russian SUPREME COURT, and the RUSSIAN PEOPLE, know otherwise!!!
>> #
>> # You claim that the atheist bayonet stuck in a 17 year old girl
>> # is Atheist REASON and ATHEIST RATIONALITY?!?!????
>> #
>> # > - stack up against the 276 children
>> # > that believer Jim Jones had killed?
>>
>> # And what is this DEPRAVED moral relativism you are
>> # attempting, that the murder of children by an ATHEIST STATE
>> # is somehow EXCUSED by the mass suicide/mass killing of some
>> # cult OTHER THAN ATHEISM?
>> #
>> # Your 'argument is "Sure we killed kids, but they killed
>> # MORE KIDS"? B^p
>> #
>> # What kind of fucking MORAL DEGENERATE ARE YOU!???
>> #
>> # *I* condemn ALL crimes of violence, you defend some, IF the killers
>> # are ATHEISTS, by trying to distract to some other murders, IRRELEVANT
>> # to the crime under discussion.
>> #
>> # You don't give a FUCK, not even about the Jonestown victims,
>> # except as a way of DISTRACTING from the Atheist infanticide
>> # you have DEFENDED! 8^o
>> #
>> # Unlike you, I DON'T AGREE THAT ONE CRIME EXCUSES ANOTHER.
>> #
>> # and UNLIKE YOU, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE JONESTOWN KILLINGS
>> # AS YOU ARE DEFENDING THE ATHIST INFANTICIDE and, by YOUR
>> # fucked up 'logic', the far greater slaughter of 40,000,000
>> # victims of the atheist holocausts.
>> #
>> # They don't 'STACK UP' in your terms because I condemn ALL
>> # the murders whereas YOU have tried to tell us that 13 year
>> # old Alexei and 17 year old Anastasia deserved to be killed
>> # by atheist thugs because they were 'despots'
>> #
>> # Prove it .. or stand condemned for your SUPPORT OF INFANTICIDE
>> ...
>> #
>> # EVERY atheist regime was like that..
>> #
>> # ..it has taken YOU 'modern' atheists to demonstrate beyond doubt that
>> # NOTHING has CHANGED....
>> #
>> # http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Unmet challenge #2
>>
Day 4 Bukakke is running from this unmet challenge
>> Budikka exposed the atheist lie that 'atheism is mere
>> non-belief in God' ..it is militant, hate-filled anti-theism:
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/874776cb72b43b60?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>>
>>
>> # From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> # Newsgroups:
>> alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.agnosticism
>> # Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:38:16 -0800 (PST)
>> # Message-ID:
>> <bfcf3a9d-9711-449a...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
>> #
>> # You can keep your spiritual values.
>> # I'll piss on them and pass on them.
>> #
>> # Budikka
>>
>> # Subject: Bukakke debunks the atheist lie that "atheism is no more than
>> # disbelief in God" .. it is militant ANTI-THEISM was Re"
>> # The atheist dilemma - the unanswerable questions atheists flee from
>> # From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
>> # Message-ID: <cLoXm.63535$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> # Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:27:52 GMT
>> #
>> # Budikka666 demonstrated that militant atheism is anti-theism:
>> #
>> # > "Morton Lucifer" wrote:
>> # >>
>> # >> Atheism makes many claims - "Atheism is a rational
>> # >> position", "Atheism is free of the dogma of primitive
>> # >> superstition"..
>> #
>> # and their most common lie, the only defence they have to
>> # the accusation that EVERY atheist regime has been a totalitarian
>> # tyranny.. the claim that 'pure' atheism is "no more than the belief
>> # that there is no God"
>> #
>> # > You can keep your spiritual values. I'll piss on them and pass on
>> # > them.
>> #
>> #
>> # So there we have it, (and not for the first time), the hate-filled
>> # bigotry and violent (toilet fetishist) anti-theism of the militant
>> # atheists.
>>
>>
>>> Unmet challenge #3
>>
Day 3 Bukakke is still running from this unmet challenge:
>> Bukakke's response, typical of irrational atheists,
>> was to snip all the facts all the properly cited evidence of atheist
>> crimes against humanity, and RUN AWAY, leaving only abuse, lies,
>> slander and ranting bile-filled hatred.. when challenged to
>> prove her slanders.. she fell silent and RAN AWAY;
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/c68682218c1b6d2a?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>>
>> # From: Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> # Newsgroups:
>> alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.agnosticism
>> # Subject: Flatnads is LYING SCUM. End of Story.
>> # Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:43:04 -0800 (PST)
>> # Message-ID:
>> <3e60edc9-1a86-42e6...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
>> #
>> # Your LIES were refuted several months ago. The fact that you're still
>> # SPAMMING ten news groups with this juvenile horseshit when they're
>> # nothing but your own manufactured jerk-off inanity proves what a
>> # useless piece of cowardly, vacuous hypocritical trash you truly are.
>> #
>> # End of story. End of you.
>> #
>> # Budikka
>>
>> How could she have 'refuted' a day old post showing her hate filled
>> anti-theism 'months ago? Psycho powers? B^D
>>
>> This is clear evidence of the consistently GUTLESS COWARDLY AND
>> INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST practice of atheists of SNIPPING the FACTS,
>> RUNNING AWAY, and leaving Nothing but hate-filled abuse and bare faced
>> LIES!
>>
>>
>> as I detailed in the subsequent post:
>>
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/843e0abd1f13fe7b?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>>
>> # Subject: Re: Bukakke debunks the atheist lie that "atheism is no
>> # more than disbelief, in God" .. it is militant ANTI-THEISM
>> # was Re: The atheist dilemma - the, unanswerable questions atheists
>> flee from
>> # From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,
>> # alt.agnosticism,alt.religion.Islam,alt.politics.democrats,
>> # alt.politics.republicans,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics
>> # Message-ID: <ogpXm.63546$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> # Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:03:16 GMT
>> #
>> # Budikka666 wrote:
>> # > fasgnadh wrote:
>> # >> Budikka666 demonstrated that militant atheism is anti-theism:
>> # >>
>> # >>> "Morton Lucifer" who looks remarkably like a Flatnads sock
puppet on
>> # >>> Dec 18, 2:48 pm wrote:
>> # >>>> Atheism makes many claims - "Atheism is a rational
>> # >>>> position", "Atheism is free of the dogma of primitive
>> # >>>> superstition"..
>> # >>
>> # >> and their most common lie, the only defence they have to
>> # >> the accusation that EVERY atheist regime has been a totalitarian
>> # >> tyranny.. the claim that 'pure' atheism is "no more than the belief
>> # >> that there is no God"
>> # >>
>> # >>> You can keep your spiritual values. I'll piss on them and pass on
>> # >>> them.
>> # >>
>> # >>
>> # >> So there we have it, (and not for the first time), the hate-filled
>> # >> bigotry and violent (toilet fetishist) anti-theism of the militant
>> # >> atheists.
>> # >>
>> # >
>> # > Your LIES were refuted several months ago.
>> #
>> # You refuted my post from today 'several months ago'???
>> #
>> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAAA!
>> #
>> # Not even your dimwitted atheist moron mates would swallow such
>> # a load of shit from you! B^D
>> #
>> # > End of story.
>> #
>> # Sure, all you atheists cut and run from "the, unanswerable
>> # questions atheists flee from" .. just like you did last time!
>> #
>> # Thanks for your repeat performance, eveyone can see clearly
>> # what a gutless lying sack of shit you are! B^]
>> #
>> #
>> # All the proof of what hate-filled militant atheists support
>> # replaced from where the Bukakke snipped it as she RAN AWAY:
>> #
>> # AGAIN!!! B^D
>> #
>> # >>
>> # >> Bukakke is a serial hit-and-run liar and abuser who is still
>> # >> RUNNING away (day 233!) from my devastating rational
>> # >> tour de force, critiquing this very issue of historical
>> # >> atheist brutality and it's contemporary apologists:
>> # >>
>> # >>
>> # >> # Budikka whined hypocritically:
>> # >> # >
>> # >> # > Unmet challenge #1
>> # >> #
>> # >> # From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
>> # >> # Subject: How Bukakke was humbled and crawled away in defeat!
>> # >> # Message-ID: <H7bPl.11167$y61.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> # >> # Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:05:27 GMT
>> # >>
>> # >> Such a long time ago, and yet Bukakke is still stung by her
>> # >> loss! B^D
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Unmet challenge #4
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion/msg/4cf9bf9265a6176b?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
Day 1 Bukakke is still running from this unmet challenge
>>
>> Subject: Bukakke claims the atheist slogan
>> "There is no God" doesn't make any sense!!!! B^D
>> Message-ID: <SrZXm.63911$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:13:06 GMT
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Unmet challenge #5
>>
Day 2 Bukakke is still running from this unmet challenge
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/c3d5dfb386544ac6?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>>
>> # Message-ID: <syHXm.63732$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> # Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:51:20 GMT
>> #
>> # Budikka666 still running (day 234) :
>> #
>> # > I refuted your LIES.
>> #
>> # You never even IDENTIFIED any lies in my post..
>> # you just snipped it and CLAIMED you had 'refuted it'
>> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHA
>> #
>> # There is NO EVIDENCE of any lies by me,
>> # there is NO EVIDENCE of any refutation, by you
>> #
>> # There is just evidence of you SNIPPING THE WHOLE POST
>> # and raving like a MAD BITCH ... as usual
>>
>>
>>> Unmet challenge #6
>>
>> .. Oh why bother, Bukakke is STILL RUNNING AWAY!!!
>>
>>
>> "Buk Buk Buk BwAAAAARK" - Chicken Bukakke
>>
>>
>> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE atheist on Usenet has been able to
>> find the guts to face these challenges.
>>
>> I have posed the UNANSWERABLE questions which atheists run from! B^]
>>
>> I have presented them wit irrefutable proof of the totalitarian
>> tyranny what has been EVERY atheist regime, and of the hate filled
>> militant atheist thugs who continue the violent tradition of atheist
>> terror, torture and mass murder.
>>
>>
>> Agnosticism is the only rational default intellectual position,
>> the atheists can no more prove THEIR belief..
>>
>> "There is No God"
>> http://www.thearrogantatheist.com/mensnogod.html
>>
>> than the theists can conclusively prove there is a God.
>>
>> But the modern democratic MAJORITY theist societies at least
>> have a track record the atheist regimes have NEVER had,
>> of providing freedom of belief for all parties! B^]
>>
>> That's why even atheists choose to live in the secular
>> states that modern majority religious societies have built
>> to protect everyone from DOMINATION by ONE DOGMA, as occurred
>> in the atheist tyrannies, and in some theocracies.
>>
>> And the theist majority condemn violence, even within their ranks,
>> whereas we have all witnessed the atheist silently condoning or
>> more often, ACTIVELY SUPPORTING they violent thugs in THEIR RANKS:
>>
>> # From: Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism
>> # Subject: Re: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
>> # Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
>> # Message-ID:
>> <128235a0-640d-495a...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
>> # Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
>> #
>> # On Sep 26, 5:46=A0am, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
>> #
>> # > We're here to talk about our own personal issues as atheists.
>> # >
>> # > BAAWA is back. You Knights out there better start being Knights
>> # > because if I don't see blood, and soon, you're gone.
>> # >
>> # > We kill theists and shit down their throats
>> # >
>> # > Warlord Steve
>> # > BAAWA
>> #
>> # ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> # BAAWA Knightette (?) Applicant
>>
>> Trance signs up to Kill theists and shit down their throats. 8^o
>>
>>
>> Not satisfied with murder, Steve favours GENOCIDE
>>
>> # From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
>> # Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
>> # Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
>> # Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
>> #
>> # On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
>> # <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> #
>> # >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
>> #
>> # It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
>> # The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
>> #
>> # Warlord Steve
>> # BAAWA
>>
>> Chris lee prefers misogynist woman-hating psychosexual violence:
>>
>> # From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
>> # Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
>> # Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
>> # Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
>> #
>> # "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
>>
>>
>>
>> # From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> # Newsgroups:
>> alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.agnosticism
>> # Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:38:16 -0800 (PST)
>> # Message-ID:
>> <bfcf3a9d-9711-449a...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
>> #
>> # You can keep your spiritual values.
>> # I'll piss on them and pass on them.
>> #
>> # Budikka
>>
>>
>> Their reason...
>>> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
>>> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>>>
>>> Case closed. End of story.
>>> Budikka
>>
Unmet Challenge #7
> Your LIE about the Russian royal family was dealt with months ago.
I made no lies about the Russian Royal Family, and you have shown no
lies by me at all.
I posted citing a story about the Russian Royal family and you
attacked it declaring that the family including the children,
deserved to be executed because they were 'despots'
" the Russian Royal family with a handful of
children - who were Christians but behaved like despots"
- Bukakke the lying atheist apologist for atheist child killers!
You have never provided any proof for your claim Alexis deserved death
because he was a despot.
You have NEVER provided PROOF for any of your LYING accusations,
you cold hearted, hate-filled murderous atheist bitch!
> The fact that all you have to offer is your mantra of repeating this
You have 7 unmet challenges, you lying bitch, your defence of
murdering innocent children is just one of them.
Youhave never proven any lie by me..
I have documented many lies BY YOU!
Game set match.
You have no credibility to defend..
That is why you repeatedly snip ALL the documented evidence
and post empty abuse, which shows your desperation and your
HYPOCRISY every time you challenge other, weaker minds.
What is most amusing, is that you think
'dickless' is an insult when I have one and you don't!
YOU EVEN LIE IN YOUR INSULTS.. you sad pathetic LOSER!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA
> End of story. End of you.
You have repeated that idiotic slogan chanting numerous times..
clearly it is not and never has been the end.. and again
you simply look foolish, ineffectual and irrelevant. B^]
> Budikka
another atheist trophy of mine:
http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
@@@ end Previous Challenges unmet by Bukakke @@@@@@@@@@@
Now,
> Since you're clearly an expert on xenogeology,
You are the one who has made claims you can't prove.
I have merely mocked your stupidity! B^]
> I hereby challenge you to a formal debate.
Since you are clearly an empty blowhard who snips and runs from
factual and rational arguments you cannot be taken seriously! B^D
Prepare to be mocked AND eviiscerated: B^)
> Please read
> all of the following before responding, OK?
Done, and you must answer ALL the UNMET challenges documented
above before YOU respond.. or else you will be MOCKED To OBLIVION! B^]
> Your position evidently is
I've put it back from where you attempted to SNIP and lie about it:
>> Oh, and don't ask her why she thinks non-gravity exists on Pandora
>> (despite any evidence), but God can't exist anywhere in the Universe,
>> despite the historical evidence that the Great and enduring
>> Civilisations on our planet are built on revealed religion,
>> and EVERY Godless atheist regime has been a catastrophic shithole...
Because she will avoid the issue, which is her lack of evidence for
Floating Mountains on a planet with an earth-like atmosphere and gravity.
>> no wonder the ranting bitch lives in a FANTASY WORLD of escapism: B^D
>>
>>> GUCS thinks it's utterly impossible. I haven't seen his peer-reviewed
>>> paper on the physics for that,
>>
>> You are unaware of Gravity? Or you think it's a local phenomena? B^D
>>
Like all atheists Bukakke Cannot answer any questions which reveal
her irrational BELIEFs by simply challenging them for EVIDENCE.
>> You must have been educated in some atheist shithole school in
>> the USSR or Maoist China!
>>
>>> but if he says it's impossible,
>>
>> I bet you swallowed Star Trek spaceships that went WOOSH in space! B^D
>>
>>> then
>>> you gotta know he cannot possibly be wrong because he knows
>>> *everything*! LoL!
>>
>> Oh look, Bukakke is miffed and thinks someone is trying to usurp her
>> debating position! B^D
It is a feeble tactic of Bukakke's to try and pretend that anyone who
makes a reasonable request for evidence of her belief in fantasy, has
made a claim to infallibility.
Can anyone see where Wayne made ANY claim of infallibility? No..
neither did I, yet, because she is embarrassed at being caught out
making claims she cannot prove, she attempts rhetorical bully tactics.
How pathetic!
Here she tries to mock someone for not knowing about the physics
of an IMAGINARY PLANET!!! B^D It's like watching a medieval
monk discuss the nature, or appearance of ANGELS; B^}
>>> Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the phsyics
>>> of this planet
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAA
>>
>> CLASSIC!
>>
>> Bukakke is arguing that no one knows about the physics of an
>> imaginary, movie world!
>>
>> Just like she knows nothing about the REAL ONE! B^D
>>
>> Lets forget that she doesn't know anything about the existence
>> of a deity in the Universe..
>>
>> After all.. she has no PEER REVIEWED science on every corner of it!
>>
>> In fact, she can't even prove there are no corners! B^D
>>
>> What a hoot!
>>
Naturally she had to snip that, it mocks both her unfounded BELIEF
and her hypocrisy, because she is asserting the POSSIBILITY of
floating mountains on a planet, and denying the possibility of
God anywhere in the universe.. even though there are scores
of religions, with the majority of the planet as adherents
following successful spiritual paths based on teachings ascribed
to God, (cf, EVERY atheist regime has been a catastrophic cluster-
fuck) .. viz, the historical evidence supports belief. B^]
>>> nor of the materials that were fapparently "floating" -
>>> becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>>> anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>>> can.any.rocks.float.
>>
>> Can you rant more slowly, you have become completely incoherent!
>>
>> "Frapparently" you are under the illusion that rocks float above
>> the surface of large gravitational masses, such as PLANETS,
>> "becasuer tunder no circumstnaces" are you an intelligent life form!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
>>
No wonder Bukakke snipped her own 'position', because it is
INCOHERENT Gibberish, and no one here speaks Gibber! B^D
>>> He's making the utterly blind assumption that these rocks, their
>>> chemistry, the gravitational influences, and the effects of this
>>> mineral cannot possibly have any effect on *anything*. Don't even
>>> *try* to bring up pumice stone floating on the ocean after a volcanic
>>> eruption
>>
>> I don't think he will, he's not as desperate as you! B^D
>>
>>> I made the awful mistake
>>
>> You frequently do, you mad ranting bitch! B^D
Did she mean being born or coming into Usenet for a
battle of wits, unarmed?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>> Still running after all these months! B^D
>>
Your claim is:
> that we know everything there is to know
> about every planet in the universe, including the moons orbiting those
> planets, the geological composition of said moons and the composition
> of every single rock-like object on every one of those moons, and
> that, therefore, there is no way anywhere in the universe and no
> circumstances whatsoever that there could be anything even remotely
> approaching geology such as that depicted in James Cameron's "Avatar"
> regardless of the composition and mechanics of the planetary system
> and regardless of the composition of those "rocks".
Clearly you wish to debate your own strawman and have snipped my
position and replaced it with more of your misunderstandings,
misrepresentations, lies, deceit and gibbersish in pursuit of that
absurd charade!
What a FUCKWIT!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
You are the most ridiculous hysteric in Usenet!
I never tire of winding you up and watching you explode
like a bucket of shit with a firecracker dropped in it! B^D
>
> My position is
untenable.
Having LOST every debate in which I agreed to participate you are now
trying to DEFINE BOTH YOUR POSITION AND MINE before we even start!!!!!!
You dishonest, hysterical, bull-goose looney atheist nutjob!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA
And even after trying to debate your own strawman,
you have STILL LOST! B^D
Let me show you how my mockery of your stance on "floating
mountains" reveals the HYPOCRISY of atheism:
How does your support for floating mountains reflect on
your position on the non-Existence of God, Bukakke?
> that we're not in any position to declare such a thing
> utterly impossible since we don't know enough
> to make such a declaration, but that we *do* know
> enough about physics to know that it's entirely possible
> for
immaterial entities, such as Zeitgeist, Love and God to exist.
Q.E.D.
> So let's you and me debate that,
You debated yourself, already..
Apparently you convinced yourself that floating mountains, like
God, could exist.
The proposition "God Does Not Exist" has been shown to be unprovable.
Therefore atheism is based upon a belief for which it has no evidence.
> using scientific support for our positions,
Everytime I present my 'position' you dishonestly SNIP IT IN
ENTIRETY, substitute a strawman of your own confection and
attempt to beat up on your self.. an easy target! B^D
Thanks for demonstrating that to all of usenet.
Thanks for snipping EVERYTHING in my post and running away,
confireming the documented evidence of you doing so on at
least SEVEN previous occasions.
It is PROFOUNDLY *UN*Scientific to snip the evidence which
does NOT support your preconception and replace it with YOUR
fabrication of anothers position.
You are the most dishonest poster in alt.atheism, a rival
for Virgil the knuckle dragging post forger!!! B^p
I will continue to mock you mercilelssly and kick your
sorry arse till your teeth bleed;
http://www.tomandang.com/blog/images/headUpArse.jpg
> and abstaining from any and all gratuitous abuse and
> insult.
Your first line after snipping my ENTIRE (abuse free) post was;
"your evident obesssion with imbibing semen."
So calling you a HYPOCRITAL LYING BITCH, is just speaking the truth!
You even try to pervert the process by claiming that ANY
response will indicate an acceptance of your position:
> Your acceptance will be literally *any* response to this
> challenge in this message regardless of what that response actually
> says,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA
In other words, Bukakke declares her irrational belief that SHE
determines the semantic content and meaning of any response by
any other poster...
does the term INSANE RANTING ATHEIST LUNATIC ring any bells? B^D
> so in order to decline this debate offer, simply do not respond
> to this specific message and I'll let it go and make no mileage from
> your backing away of my challenge.
Ok. here's my formal response to this hilarious nutjob;
"Bukakke, you have made the challenge, so I get to choose
the weapons. We will use my topic and YOUR fucked logic;
If you reply to this post, or any of my posts it
indicates your acceptance of the existence of God.
Any reply means an acceptance of God.
If you don't wish to admit the existence of God,
don't reply, EVER, to anything I post.
> Deal?
I have already dealt , if you pick up your cards,
you agree God Exists!
I will remind you of this contract, and the 'logic', B^p
proposed by you, upon which it rests, in the event of any
reply by you!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
> Budikka
Hoist on her own nutty-as-a-fruitcake petard!
fasgnadh
Tick one:
Your
a) Attention Span [ ]
b) penis [ ]
c) IQ [ ]
d) all of the above [ ]
is too small.
Your boyfriend can help you with the answers.
Thanks for being the 138th atheist in a row incapable
of doing anything but SNIP, RUN and WHINE! B^]
One day a member of the atheist Borg will amaze us all
by doing something original..
or witty..
or rational..
or sane..
or amusing..
or funny (other than inadvertantly so ;-)
or useful...
or..
fasgnadh
> : Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> appears to be on drugs:
> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the phsyics
> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently "floating" -
> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
> : can.any.rocks.float.
>
> at odds with how physics has been pursued the last few hundred years.
Yes but that Physics was pursued by THEIST scientists, Copernicus,
Newton, Bacon, Faraday, Planck, Schroedinger, Kelvin, Lema�tre.. etc..
Bukakke prefers her science via Hollywood and James Cameron's
IMAGINATION! B^D
> Physics is physics, and laws-o-physics are translation-invariant
> (that is, the same everywhere). It's sort of in the buylaws.
>
> But "materials", true; it's unclear just what the floating rocks are made
> of, and if they differ from what we're familiar with rocks being made of,
> nor what the unobtanium is, really. Hey, it could be a bunch of magnetic
> monopoles embedded in a bafflegab matrix, which wouldn't really mean it
> wasn't science fiction. Especially (aiui, from descriptions here) there
> was a lab demo of floatin' stuff early in the picture, in an expository
> blurb about why they were interested in the region. When you go to
> the trouble to slap a "this here is science, see, it's in a lab" label
> on something right in the movie, supposing it is nevertheless fantasy
> onaccounta a few floatin' pebbles is going a bit far.
>
B^D Hilarious spoof!
I can hear her impotent teeth gnashing from here! B^]
You realise that Bukakke is not the only atheist described
perfectly by Chesterton and Jung:
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
� they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:
# "it makes utterly no difference which goddesses or gods
# you believe in, as long as you have some...
# Me, I'd suggest Bastet." - Cary Kittrell
#
# (has he misspelled 'Kitten'? ;-)
# From: Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
# Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
<b966d162-63bb-4f9f...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
#
# We may worship cats but we love all kinds of animals.
Then there is the other Atheist Catechism: ;-)
Published as part of the Official "Atheist Quote of the Month" liturgy
where all the Atheists gather to affirm what best expresses their beliefs:
# Subject: aa - The Polls are Open! AQOTM for Nov 2008
# Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:10:11 -0500
# From: *nemo* <nemo...@earthlink.diespam.com>
# Message-ID: <aKedndoPx4epAbPU...@earthlink.com>
#
# 1) The universe is ruled by a wizard, a zombie, and a ghost.
# Only the ghost is with us now, even though
# the zombie shacks up in our gall bladders and the wizard
# is omnipresent. You'll want to stay on the wizard's good
# side, because he has this thing for the aroma of
# flame-broiled human flesh. Oh, and this ripple and
# this Wheat Thin will turn into chunks of the zombie
# if a designated wizard's apprentice casts a spell on them.
# Thus enchanted, the cracker can be used to reveal the
# true demonic nature of Jews, much as a garlic pizza
# could out vampires (if we believed in such things,
# which we don't cuz that would be silly, dontcha know).
# We know these things to be true despite having not
# one damn reason to believe any of them.
#
# Authior By: DuhIdiot (Atheist )
# Nominated: Christopher A Lee (Atheist )
# Seconded: AZ Nomad (Atheist )
#
# Supported by the following card-carrying
# atheists:
#
# DuhIdiot (Atheist )
# Christopher A Lee (Atheist )
# AZ Nomad (Atheist )
# Robibnikoff (Atheist )
# Kilmir (Atheist )
# Smiler (Atheist )
# Douglas Berry (Atheist )
# pbamvv (Atheist )
# Uncle Vic (Atheist )
# johac (Atheist )
# Louis 14 (Atheist )
# Frank Mayhar (Atheist )
# Tim McGauchy (Atheist )
# Vipera Berus (Atheist )
# http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17445?context=latest
Jung explains the atheist's problem:
"Among all my patients in the second half of life, that is, over
thirty-five, there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because
he had lost that which the living religions of every age
have given their followers, and none of them has really
been healed who did not regain his religious outlook."
-Carl G. Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul
Atheists attribute the problem to them being
inferior to lifeforms that have not yet mastered writing;
# Subject: Re: Atheist vs Theist Pet Poll
# From: Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
# Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
<94d8a483-13cd-4aa7...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
#
# On Oct 2, 4:19=A0pm, SkyEyes wrote:
# > On Oct 1, 6:36=A0pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
# >>> Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote
# >
# >>>> I know this is probably silly
# >>
# >> only true atheists have cats and only true cats have atheists.
# >
# > Cats choose atheists
# >
# > an atheist, being a non- practitioner of religion, will not
# > waste her/his worship on any being *other than* the cat.
# >
# > a cat *is the closest things to a Superior Being
#
# Beautifully put. This is quotable material. :-)
#
# Do you mind if I quote it on my other group?
> Enter at your own peril
> Through the vaulted door
> Where impossible things may happen
> That the world has never seen before!
> --- Dexter's Lab
> (which I suppose doesn't really advance the thesis
> that "lab == science", but pfft, so it goes)
>
> There is doom, and gloom, while things go boom
> In Dexter's Lab!
> --- ibid
>
> "After countless exposures to biotonic energy,
> no mutations, no enhanced abilities, no nothing.
> It seems you will never be anything more than a mere monkey."
> --- Dial M for Monkey
>
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
fasgnadh
>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> talks with her mouth full:
>>
>> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the phsyics
>> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently "floating" -
>> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>> : can.any.rocks.float.
>>
> You're an idiot.
That goes without saying, but she seems to be sucking cock while
speaking! B^D
> suck so badly.
Ah, so it's YOU in her mouth!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA
I hope you have had your shots! ;-)
Mavisbeacon
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:5iZYm.64604$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> talks with her mouth full:
> >>
>>> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the phsyics
>>> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently "floating" -
>>> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>>> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>>> : can.any.rocks.float.
>>>
Some boats are made of concrete, and one could float an asteroid on a lake
of Mercury.
regn.pickfod
or an island like Australia over a molten core, apparantly.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> talks with her mouth full:
>> >>
>>>> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the phsyics
>>>> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently "floating" -
>>>> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>>>> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>>>> : can.any.rocks.float.
>>>>
>>
>> That goes without saying, but she seems to be sucking cock while
>> speaking! B^D
>>
>>
>>> suck so badly.
>>
>>
>> Ah, so it's YOU in her mouth!!!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA
>>
>>
>> I hope you have had your shots! ;-)
>
> Some boats are made of concrete,
Some heads are made of wood, apparently.
Are you claiming the "floating mountains" are hollow
and float by displacing the thin breathable atmosphere of Pandora? B^]
Why don't you demonstrate your theory by posting to
youtube your success with a concrete balloon! B^D
> and one could float an asteroid on a lake
> of Mercury.
Are you claiming the atmosphere on Pandora is Mercury?
How come we see so much detail through it, and how
do the inhabitants move so quickly through it.
and WHY do their flying machines have propellers,
if they can just 'displace' their own volume of 'Mercury'!?
B^D
Chesterton was right;
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
� they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:
fasgnadh
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> talks with her mouth full:
>>> >>
>>>>> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the
>>>>> phsyics
>>>>> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently
>>>>> "floating" -
>>>>> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>>>>> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>>>>> : can.any.rocks.float.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> That goes without saying, but she seems to be sucking cock while
>>> speaking! B^D
>>>
>>>
>>>> suck so badly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, so it's YOU in her mouth!!!
>>>
>>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope you have had your shots! ;-)
>
>>
Some heads are made of wood, apparently.
Are you claiming the "floating mountains" are hollow
and float by displacing the thin breathable atmosphere of Pandora? B^]
Why don't you demonstrate your theory by posting to
youtube your success with a concrete balloon! B^D
>> and one could float an asteroid on a lake
>> of Mercury.
Are you claiming the atmosphere on Pandora is Mercury?
How come we see so much detail through it, and how
do the inhabitants move so quickly through it.
and WHY do their flying machines have propellers,
if they can just 'displace' their own volume of 'Mercury'!?
B^D
Chesterton was right;
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
� they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:
> or an island like Australia over a molten core, apparantly.
It's unfortunate for your theory than there are no
continents floating in the AIR! B^D
And yet you propose an arrow could be shot through such
a dense medium in which MOUNTAINS would float?!!?
It must make lovemaking on Pandora a real effort..
but it would certainly be Hot Sex!
Pandora's atmosphere would have to be denser than you are! B^D
And none of the action shown indicates that it takes place in
Lava, Mercury or anything other than the IMAGINATION OF ATHEISTS
and their FANTASIES..
You would be interested in the Sequel: "Gullibles Travels"
Book your seat on the Tardis now!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Physics was pursued by THEIST scientists
Only because theists killed off everyone else.
3 Silly Religious Beliefs Held By Non-Silly People
By Greta Christina, Greta Christina's Blog. Posted October 30, 2009.
Many of the beliefs held by religious moderates -- smart people who
respect science and the separation of church and state -- are as
untenable as the dogma of fundamentalists.
"You can't disprove religion."
I'm seeing this trope a lot these days. "You can't disprove religion. At
least -- not my religion."
"Well, of course," the trope continues, "many outdated religious beliefs
-- young-earth creationism, the universe revolving around the earth, the
sun being drawn across the sky by Apollo's chariot -- have been shown by
science to be mistaken. But modern progressive and moderate beliefs --
these, you can't disprove with science. These are simply matters of
faith: things people reasonably choose to believe, based on their
personal life experience."
Then there's the corollary to this trope: "Therefore, atheism is just as
much a matter of faith as religion. And atheists who think atheism is
better supported by evidence are just as dogmatic and close-minded as
religious believers."
The usual atheist reply to this is to cry, "That's the God of the Gaps!
Whatever phenomenon isn't currently explained by science, that's where
you stick your God! What kind of sense does that make? Why should any
given unexplained phenomenon be best explained by religion? Has there
ever been a gap in our knowledge that's eventually been shown to be
filled by God?"
Which is a pretty good reply, and one I make a lot myself. But today, I
want to say something else.
Today, I want to point out that this is simply not the case.
The fact is that many modern progressive and moderate religions do make
claims about the observable world. And many of those claims are
unsupported by science... and, in fact, are in direct contradiction of
it.
I want to talk today about three specific religious beliefs. Not obscure
cults or rigid fundamentalist dogmas; not young-earth creationism, or
the doctrine that communion wafers literally and physically transform
into the human flesh of Christ somewhere in the digestive tract, or the
belief that the human mind has been taken over by space aliens. I want
to talk about three widely held beliefs of modern progressive and
moderate believers: beliefs held by intelligent and educated believers
who respect science and don't think religion should contradict it.
And I want to point out that even these beliefs are in direct
contradiction of the vast preponderance of available evidence -- almost
as much as the obscure cults and the rigid fundamentalist dogma.
So let's go! Today's beliefs on the chopping block are:
1: Evolution guided by God.
Also known as "theistic evolution." Among progressive and moderate
believers, this is an extremely common position on evolution. They
readily (and rightly) dismiss the claims of young-earth creationists
that humanity and all the universe were created in one swell foop 6,000
years ago. They dismiss these claims as utterly contradicted by the
evidence. Instead, they say that evolution proceeds exactly as the
biologists say it does, but this process is guided by God, to bring
humanity and the vast variety of life into being.
A belief that is almost as thoroughly contradicted by the evidence as
young-earth creationism is.
Nowhere in anatomy, nowhere in genetics, nowhere in the fossil record or
the geological record or any of the physical records of evolution, is
there even the slightest piece of evidence for divine intervention.
Quite the contrary. If there had been a divine hand tinkering with the
process, we would expect evolution to have proceeded radically
differently than it has. We would expect to see, among the changes in
anatomy from generation to generation, at least an occasional instance
of the structure being tweaked in non-gradual ways. We would expect to
see -- oh, say, just for a random example -- human knees and backs
better designed for bipedal animals than quadrupeds. (She said bitterly,
putting an ice pack on her bad knee.) We would expect to see the blind
spot in the human eye done away with, perhaps replaced with the octopus
design that doesn't have a blind spot. We would expect to see the vagus
nerve re-routed so it doesn't wander all over hell and gone before
getting where it's going. We would expect to see a major shift in the
risk-benefit analysis that's wired into our brains, one that better
suits a 70-year life expectancy than a 35-year one. We would expect to
see... I could go on, and on, and on.
And it's not just humans. We'd expect to see whales with gills, pandas
with real thumbs, ostriches without those stupid useless wings.
We don't see any of this.
What we see instead is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution
proceeded entirely as a natural, physical process. We see "designs" of
living things that are flawed and inefficient and just plain goofy:
"designs" that exist for no earthly reason except the slow
incrementalism that's an inherent part of the physical process of
evolution. We see anatomical adaptations severely constrained by the
fact that each generation can only be a slight modification on the
previous generation, with no sudden jumps to a different basic version.
We see anatomical adaptations severely constrained by the fact that each
new version has to be an improvement on the previous version (or at
least, not a deterioration from it). We see a vast preponderance of
evidence showing that evolution proceeds very slowly, very gradually,
with the anatomy of each generation being only slightly altered (if at
all) from that of the previous generation.
And that isn't how things designed by a conscious designer, or even
things tinkered with by a conscious designer, work.
Even when a designer is stuck with the outlines of a previous design,
they can still make significant, non-incremental changes. They can tear
out the cabinets and replace them with windows, and move the stove to
the other side of the room where the fridge is now. They're not stuck
with moving the stove one inch at a time, once every week or year or
twenty years. And they're not stuck with a system in which every inch
that the stove moves has to be an improvement on the previous inch.
They're not stuck with a system where, if the stove has been moving
across the floor in a series of incremental improvements, it's going to
have to stop if it starts blocking the door... because blocking the door
is a serious disadvantage.
And if a designer is omnipotent, they're not even stuck with the
outlines of a previous design. They're not stuck with anything at all.
Why on earth would an all-powerful and benevolent god, a god who's
capable of magically altering DNA, bring life into being by the slow,
cruel, violent, inefficient, tacked- together- with- duct- tape process
of evolution in the first place?
Now, it's true that we do see some evidence for what are sometimes
called "jumps" in the fossil record: evidence that evolutionary changes
sometimes happen very slowly, and sometimes happen more rapidly. (It's a
controversial position, but it is one held by some respected
evolutionary biologists.) And some believers in theistic evolution leap
onto this hypothesis and hang on like it's the last helicopter out of
Saigon.
But the "rapid jumps" thing is very misleading. "Rapid," in evolutionary
terms, means "taking place over a few hundred years instead of a few
thousand" (or "a few thousand years instead of a few hundred thousand.")
And as recent research has repeatedly shown, evolution can take place
surprisingly rapidly, in a matter of decades... and still be an entirely
natural process of small changes, incremental alterations in each
generation from the previous one. Exactly as we would expect if
evolution were an entirely natural, physical process of descent with
modification. So even if this "rapid jumps" (or "punctuated
equilibrium") hypothesis is true, it still doesn't point to theistic
evolution. Not even a little bit.
Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the idea of
evolution guided by God. And there is a significant body of evidence
that strongly suggests the contrary.
2: An immaterial soul that animates human consciousness.
I will acknowledge freely: We don't yet understand consciousness very
well. The sciences of neurology and neuropsychology are very much in
their infancy, and the basic questions of what exactly consciousness is,
and where exactly it comes from, and how exactly it works, are, as of
yet, largely unanswered.
But research is happening. The foundations for our understanding of
consciousness are beginning to be laid. There are a few things that we
do know about consciousness.
And among the things we know is that, whatever consciousness is, it
seems to be an entirely biological process. A massive body of evidence
points to this conclusion.
When we make physical changes to the brain, it changes consciousness.
Drugs, injury, surgery, sensory deprivation, electrical current,
magnetic fields, medication, illness, exercise -- all these things
change our consciousness. Sometimes drastically. Sometimes rendering an
entire personality unrecognizable. Even very small changes to the brain
can result in massive changes to consciousness... both temporary and
permanent.
This works vice versa as well. Magnetic resonance imagery has shown
that, when people think different thoughts, different parts of their
brains light up with activity. Changes in thought show up as changes in
the brain.... just as changes in the brain show up as changes in thought.
And, of course, we have the drastic change in consciousness created by
the very drastic change in the physical brain known as "death."
All the available evidence points to the conclusion that, when the brain
dies, consciousness disappears. (And by "when the brain dies," I don't
mean, "when the brain is temporarily deprived of oxygen for a short
time," a.k.a. "near death experiences." I mean when the brain dies,
permanently.) The belief that consciousness survives death has probably
been researched more than any other supernatural hypothesis -- nobody,
not even scientists, wants death to be permanent -- and it has never,
ever been substantiated. Reports of it abound. But when carefully
examined, using good, rigorous scientific methodology, these reports
fall apart like a house of cards.
Everything we understand about consciousness points to it being a
physical, biological process. Physical changes cause observable effects.
When we see that in any other phenomenon, we assume that what's going on
is physical cause and effect. We have no reason to think that anything
else is going on with the phenomenon of consciousness.
And there is not a single scrap of good evidence supporting the
hypothesis that consciousness is even partly a supernatural phenomenon.
There are many gaps in our understanding of consciousness -- that's a
massive understatement -- but there is not one piece of solid,
rigorously gathered evidence suggesting that any of those gaps can and
should be filled with the hypothesis of an immaterial soul. There's not
even a good, testable theory explaining how this immaterial soul is
supposed to interact with the physical brain. All there is to support
this belief is a personal intuitive feeling on the part of believers
that the soul has to be non-physical because, well, it just seems like
that... plus thousands of years of other believers with a similar
intuitive feeling, who have told it to one another, and taught it to
their followers, and made up elaborate rationalizations for it, and
written it into their holy texts.
Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the idea of
an immaterial soul that animates human consciousness. And there is a
significant body of evidence that strongly suggests the contrary.
]
3: A sentient universe.
You might ask why I'm including this particular belief in my Big Three
Targets. You might wonder why, among all the widely held religious
beliefs in the world today, I'm aiming my sights at this New Age/
Neo-Pagan/ Wiccan belief in a World-Soul.
My answer: I live in Northern California. 'Nuff said.
So that's why I want to debunk this belief. And I'm pretty much going to
repeat what I said in #2 above:
We don't yet understand what consciousness is. But we do know that,
whatever it is, it seems to be a biological product of the brain.
And the universe does not have a brain.
The universe does not have a physical structure capable of supporting
consciousness. The universe does not have neurons, dendrites, ganglia.
The universe has stars, and planets, and other astronomical bodies,
separated by unimaginably vast regions of empty space.
And stars and planets and so on do not behave like neurons and dendrites
and so on. They behave like stars and planets. They behave like objects
that, as nifty as they are, are not alive, by any useful definition of
the word "life."
If consciousness is a biological process -- as an overwhelming body of
evidence suggests, see #2 above -- then the universe, not being a
biological entity, cannot possibly be conscious. To say that it is would
mean radically redefining what we mean by "conscious." And we have no
reason to do so... other than a wishful desire to think of the universe
as sentient.
Consciousness has, for a long time, been a mysterious and utterly
ineffable phenomenon. So, before Darwin, was the tremendous variety and
mind-boggling complexity of life. And like the variety and complexity of
life, consciousness is no longer ineffable. It is being effed. The
unexplainable is being explained. And it is being explained as a
biological phenomenon -- as physical cause and effect.
Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the idea of
a sentient universe. And there is a significant body of evidence that
strongly suggests the contrary.
***
Now. I can hear the chorus already. "How can you prove that? You don't
know that with absolute certainty! God could be intervening in evolution
-- just in ways that are indistinguishable from natural selection! There
could be some sort of immaterial soul interacting with the biological
process of consciousness, in ways we don't yet perceive! There could be
some weird form of consciousness that we don't understand, one that's
generated by stars and planets and lifeless astronomical bodies! You
can't prove with absolute certainty that there isn't! Your non-belief is
just an article of faith!"
My answer:
No. We can't prove that with 100% certainty.
But neither can we prove with 100% certainty that the universe wasn't
created 6,000 years ago, by a god who deliberately planted the fossil
record and the genetic record and the geological record and the laws of
atomic decay, all to test our faith. (Or all of which was planted by
Satan, to trick us and tempt us into disbelief.) We can't prove with
100% certainty that communion wafers don't turn into Christ's physical
body on contact with the human digestive system. Hell, we can't prove
with 100% certainty that the earth goes around the sun, and that all our
senses and logical abilities haven't been fooled by some trickster god
into thinking that it does.
And it doesn't matter. As I've said many times: 100% unshakeable
certainty is not the objective here. Reasonable plausibility, supported
by carefully gathered and rigorously tested positive evidence, is the
objective. And there is no reason to apply the "Reasonable plausibility
supported by evidence" standard to the belief in young-earth
creationism... and still apply the "If you can't disprove it with 100%
certainty, then it's still reasonable for me to believe it" standard to
the beliefs in theistic evolution, and an immaterial soul, and a
sentient universe.
If you're going to accept that young-earth creationism has been
conclusively disproven by a mountain of scientific evidence, even though
we acknowledge a .00001% hypothetical possibility that it might be
true... then, if you're going to be consistent, you have to apply that
same standard, that same willingness to accept the reasonable
conclusions of science about which ideas are and are not plausible, to
all religious beliefs.
Including your own.
Especially your own.
Not everything is a matter of opinion or perspective. Not everything can
turn into something completely different if you just look at it
differently. Some things are either true or not true. It is not true
that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. It is not true that the
sun goes around the earth. And it is not true that evolution is shaped
by the hand of God, or that consciousness is animated by an immaterial
soul, or that the universe is sentient.
These things aren't true for exactly the same reason that young-earth
creationism isn't true. They aren't true because the evidence simply
doesn't support them. They aren't true because the evidence actively
contradicts them.
If you're going to be a moderate or progressive religious believer; if
you're going to be a religious believer who respects and supports
science instead of treating it as the enemy; if you're going to be a
religious believer who wants their beliefs to at least not be directly
contradictory with the available scientific evidence... then you need to
be willing to consider the possibility that your own beliefs are every
bit as contradicted by that evidence as the beliefs of the
fundamentalist crazies.
And if the answer is "yup, that belief seems to be contradicted by the
evidence"... then you need to be willing to let go of that belief.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > fasgnadh is in penis envy of Bukakke:
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Budikka666 wrote:
A bunch of stuff that faggotsnuts could not deal with so that faggotnuts
snipped it all.
And since the garbage that faggotsnuts replaced it with does not need
answering, I have snipped it.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain"
I don�t think God exists, but if He does I�m glad that He�ll be my
judge instead of His followers"
"Every time I see a rainbow, I remember that it�s God�s way of saying
"I�m sorry, and I promise I won�t kill every living thing on Earth ever
again. Honest.�"
"Jesus was the bastard child of an unwed mother" -unknown
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don�t hold them under long
enough" -unknown
"If there�s no God, then who pops up the next Kleenex?" -unknown
"To you I�m an atheist; to God, I�m the loyal opposition" -Woody Allen?
"An agnostic is an atheist without the courage of his convictions" -
Woody Allen?
"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very
efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning." -
Bill Gates
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
"What a queer thing is Christian salvation! Believing in firemen will
not save a burning house; believing in doctors will not make one well,
but believing in a savior saves men. Fudge!" -Lemuel Washburn
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers
that may never be questioned." -Author Unknown
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The
happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -George
Bernard Shaw
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes." -James
Feibleman
"In Heaven all the interesting people are missing." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"I viewed my fellow man not as a fallen angel, but as a risen ape." -
Desmond Morris
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal
"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could
never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian
dogma." -Abraham Lincoln
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." -Thomas
Jefferson
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my
own church." -Thomas Paine
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and
to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and
his children are smart." -Henry Mencken
"Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be
happy." -Henry Mencken
"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into
his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a
man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way." -Bertrand Russell
"Where knowledge ends, religion begins." -Benjamin Disraeli
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens is that
the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the
saccharine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their
prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet
this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster
it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive
industries in history." -Robert Heinlein
"I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion is
anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional
grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack
religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not
noticed it." -Bertrand Russell
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -Napoleon
Bonaparte
"Hell is an outrage on humanity. When you tell me that your deity made
you in his image, I reply that he must have been very ugly." -Victor
Hugo
"Religion to me has always been the wound, not the bandage." -Dennis
Potter
"Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the
incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the
absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains." -Robert G. Ingersoll
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration -
courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the
truth." -Henry Mencken
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and
common sense." -Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -Napoleon
Bonaparte
"Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly
all religions come from that hope." -Robert G. Ingersoll
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -Cardinal Bellarmine
John Cook
I gather you don't like atheists - or me for that matter - tis ok
But your sig is too long
--
John Cook
Reality is not Democratic
Mavisbeacon
> regn.pickfod wrote:
>> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> talks with her mouth full:
>>>> >>
>>>>>> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the
>>>>>> phsyics
>>>>>> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently
>>>>>> "floating" -
>>>>>> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>>>>>> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>>>>>> : can.any.rocks.float.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> That goes without saying, but she seems to be sucking cock while
>>>> speaking! B^D
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> suck so badly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so it's YOU in her mouth!!!
>>>>
>>>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope you have had your shots! ;-)
>>
>>>
>>> Some boats are made of concrete,
>
> Some heads are made of wood, apparently.
>
> Are you claiming the "floating mountains" are hollow
> and float by displacing the thin breathable atmosphere of Pandora?
> B^]
No. I am just offering a counter argument to the claim that nowhere in the
universe can rocks float.
First it depends on what one calls a rock.
and that isnt a reference to petros/petra'kephos.
Second, even given a rock as big as an asteroid it is technically possible
to "float" it.
>
> Why don't you demonstrate your theory by posting to
> youtube your success with a concrete balloon! B^D
Now you are considering a roick floating on air. If one could construct
monomecular thin concrete or a silicate gel base maybe one could construct a
baloon big enough flled with say hydrogen to float in air.
>
>
>>> and one could float an asteroid on a lake
>>> of Mercury.
>
>
> Are you claiming the atmosphere on Pandora is Mercury?
No.
No. I am just offering a counter argument to the claim that nowhere in the
universe can rocks float.
First it depends on what one calls a rock.
and that isnt a reference to petros/petra'kephos.
Second, even given a rock as big as an asteroid it is technically possible
to "float" it.
I do not know abouit any Pandora. Is it something to do with Cameron's film?
>
> How come we see so much detail through it, and how
> do the inhabitants move so quickly through it.
>
> and WHY do their flying machines have propellers,
> if they can just 'displace' their own volume of 'Mercury'!?
>
> B^D
I dont know
I was only offering a counter argument to the claim that nowhere in the
universe can rocks float.
First it depends on what one calls a rock.
and that isnt a reference to petros/petra'kephos.
Second, even given a rock as big as an asteroid it is technically possible
to "float" it.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:18:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That particular tool was used for both - that's what I was comparing.
>>>>> The results are obviously different.
>> >>
>>>> As I indicated by my statement that "Avatar is nothing whatsoever like
>>>> Polar Express".
>>>>
>>>> I'm so sorry you missed that. Please do forgive me. it was obviously
>>>> my fault, because you quite obviously know everything, even about
>>>> conditions on planets several light years away
>>>
>>> Interesting. What is it that I quite obviously know? (And why
>>> didn't I tell me about it?)
>>>
>>
>> It's really quite simple: she is embarrassed at being caught out
>> and is doing the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from
>> her humiliation.
Engaging in a battle of wits with atheists is fighting unarmed opponents!
All they have left is feeble, unoriginal, parroted imitation,
this example was posted by Virgil the serial post forger who
attributed it to me;
> It's really quite simple: Faggotnuts is embarrassed
> at being caught out and is doing the Dance of
> the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from
> its humiliation.
When atheism relies on such desperate duplicity, it has lost!
>> Feeble facetiousness is all she has left.
Facile fabrication and forged falsehoods are all any atheist has left!
They are a spent force. B^]
>> You pointed out the same software tool was used in both movies,
>> she continues rabbiting on about the ways in which the films
>> are NOT the same, in a desperate attempt to pretend the thing
>> they have in common does not exist! It's hilarious. B^]
>>
>>
>>
>> * Similar to the 'Broken-Wing' performance a mother bird will
>> perform to distract predators from it's vulnerable nest, only
>> the human version involves nudity and a lit newspaper.
Budikka666
First of all, my position has consistently been that there's no
objective evidence whatsoever for any god which is why I don't
believe. It's the default atheist position, and I've never claimed it
was otherwise. I've never claimed, nor has any atheist I'm familiar
with, that there's evidence proving there is no god. Since the
theists are the ones who are claiming there's something more to the
universe than what we see, the onus is entirely upon them to provide
evidence for this extra thing that they term "God". In this they've
consistently failed.
That's it; it, like you, Flatnads, is that simple.
The fact that you have to post a message stating the frigging obvious
is one more testimonial to your pedantic juvenile mentality. The fact
that you evidently LIE about your supposed agnosticism whilst
relentlessly making the most futile attacks on atheists and never once
attacking theists, pretty much pigeonholes you for the puerile LIAR
that you've proven yourself to be, living in irrational terror of
atheists and hitting out blindly like the sad kid that you are.
I pity you. But that wont stop me kicking your risibly dumb ass
whenever necessary.
End of non-story.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
>
> Executive summary so no one misses the logical implications
> of Bukakke's position for atheism: (full context, after
> Bukakke's Snip and Run fixed, maintained below)
I know you evidently love to get ejaculate in your face, but your
sexual obsessions are utterly irrelevant both to me and to the topic.
Please keep your rpeferences to yourself.
> # Let me show you how my mockery of your stance on floating
> # mountains reveals the HYPOCRISY of atheism:
It reveals nothing of the sort. What it does reveal is that you're a
clueless moron. This isn't news either to atheists or to anyone in
any of the groups you insist upon spamming, so once again you news
groups have been trimmed, jackass.
> # How does your support for floating mountains reflect on
> # your position on the non-Existence of God, Bukakke?
The one has nothing to do with the other as everyone who's followed
this exchange and has half a function brain knows. That lets you out,
Jackass.
> # > that we're not in any position to declare such a thing
> # > utterly impossible since we don't know enough
> # > to make such a declaration, but that we *do* know enough
> # > about physics to know that it's entirely possible
Once again, what do the laws of physics have to do with a proposed
supernatural being, Moron? You've tripped your dumb ass up right
there. Nothing more needs to be added, except to say that everything
I said about those suspended formations in the Avatar movie is based
on known physics as I shall explain shortly. Nothing about a
supernatural god has anything to do with laws of physics.
I'm sorry you're too moronic to grasp this, shit-for-brains, but
that's your mother's problem, not mine
> So atheism is invalid when it tries to deny the possibility of God
> without conclusive evidence, and fasgnad was right when he said
> this atheist postion is untenable:
Now Flatnads refers to himself in the third person! LoL! Talk about
delusional!
> The only rational positions remaining are agnosticism (my intellectual
> stance)
And the fact that you relentlessly attack atheists and never once
attack theists gives the LIE to that claim doesn't it , LIAR? I guess
this irrational mindset is the result of endlessly getting your dumb
juvenile ass kicked by atheists and rarely, if ever, getting it kicked
by theists, so you lash out like a hurt child. LoL! What a pathetic
joke you are, Faltnads.
> Of course, you ignore the facts and give us more of your LIES,
This form the LIAR who has LIED about pretty much everything in this
present message, as I shall shortly demonstrate?
> and EMPTY ad hom and abuse:
This from the hypocrite who calls me "Bukkake"? LoL! What a pathetic
joke you truly are. You're the one repeatedly dragging that term into
the messages. This reveals far more about your mentality than it ever
does about anyone who draws your tragic failings to your attention you
clueless imbecile! LoL!
> Right away we see you calling me a liar when the thread shows you
> denying gravity and then you project your habits onto me, without
> any supporting evidence whatsoever!
Once again you resort to LIES because you've nothing else to offer.
I've never denied gravity, nor have I ever denied the laws of physics
nor the fact that so far as we can tell, the laws of physics operate
the same everywhere in this universe. It would be foolish to deny
this, since the laws of physics and even time itself are woven deeply
into the very fabric of this universe.
But then I'm not the one inventing crap am I? You're the one who
routinely invents bullshit, and spams it all over Usenet. I'm not the
one claiming to have godlike powers to know exactly *how* those laws
operate under every circumstance in every solar system on every planet
and moon everywhere, am I? It's you who's doing that. I'm not the
one claiming to know for a fact exactly of what material those
floating "rocks" in the fictional movie "Avatar" were composed, am I?
**YOU** are.
I'm not the one claiming to know exactly what the fictional mineral
called "unobtainium" in the movie was composed, am I, nor what
physical properties it had, am I? You're the one who's LYING that he
knows all this.
I'm not the one who failed to note that one of the plot drivers in
that movie was the fact of this very rare, very valuable and very
unusual mineral in the moon where the action took place, which itself
was orbiting a gas giant which affected gravity on the moon, a moon
where things were so out of whack that trees (and the aliens for that
matter) grew to significantly greater heights than similar things do
on Earth. I'm not the one ignoring all of that in his clueless
juvenile desperation to blindly (and ill-advisedly as it happens) hit
out at atheists.
Nor am I the one who avoided a debate where he'd have to support these
LIES, am I? You're the one who has shown you cannot support your
claims, but let me support mine right here:
here's one way in which gravity can be suspended:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation
And it also works on living things:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/nasa-levitates-mouse
So yes, things can float under certain circumstances, so, as I
explained to "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy", it's not completely
outside of science, let alone science that we know right here and now,
let alone outside of science fiction to have an object, and even a
living thing - even a mammal - seemingly defying gravity, which means
it isn't automatically science fantasy as GUCS was mistakenly arguing.
Is that clear enough for you, you retarded dipshit?
So once again let me state my position that you've dishonestly
distorted as usual in your lame-brain juvenile fashion. *YOU* are the
one LYING that "mountains" were floating when no such thing was
happening. There were no floating *mountains* in the Avatar movie.
What there was floating was large objects that *looked* like rocks,
but *YOU* are the one who is asserting that these "rocks" are
*exactly* like rocks most of us are familiar on Earth; that they're
limestone or granite, or basalt or something along those lines.
Yet you have no idea what these formations were chemically speaking,
or whether or not they were largely hollow or what they were filled
with under the surface or what they were composed of. No idea
whatsoever, but that doesn't stop you opening your dumb mouth and
vomiting bullshit about them does it? Since when has an empty head
prevented you from spamming news groups, Faltnads? Never.
Clearly you're too stupid to know that not all rocks are alike. Some
rocks, for example, float in water:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice_raft
But you're too stupid to know that.
So no, floating rocks are not an impossibility even on Earth under the
laws of physics which operate throughout the universe as far as we can
tell. Levitation isn't impossible even on Earth under the laws of
physics which operate throughout the universe as far as we can tell.
So once again your LIE is exposed.
Rest of your masturbation flushed where it belongs.
I'm done kicking your stupid ass now. You can go. Just don't expect
me to baby you every time you have one of your brain function
deficits. OK?
Budikka
Bill Steele
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:18:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> That particular tool was used for both - that's what I was comparing.
> >>>>> The results are obviously different.
> >> >>
> >>>> As I indicated by my statement that "Avatar is nothing whatsoever like
> >>>> Polar Express".
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm so sorry you missed that. Please do forgive me. it was obviously
> >>>> my fault, because you quite obviously know everything, even about
> >>>> conditions on planets several light years away
> >>>
> >>> Interesting. What is it that I quite obviously know? (And why
> >>> didn't I tell me about it?)
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's really quite simple: she is embarrassed at being caught out
> >> and is doing the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from
> >> her humiliation.
>
> Engaging in a battle of wits with atheists is fighting unarmed opponents!
>
> All they have left is feeble, unoriginal, parroted imitation,
Quoting the Bible is, of course, so creative and original...
Virgil
Engaging in a battle of wits with Faggotnuts is fighting an unarmed
opponent!
All Faggotnuts has left is feeble, unoriginal, parroted imitation of
sanity.
>
> > It's really quite simple: Faggotnuts is embarrassed at being
> > caught out and is doing the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to
> > distract from his humongous humiliation.
When Faggotnuts falsehoods rely on such desperate duplicity, he has lost!
>
Facile fabrication and forged falsehoods are all Faggotnuts the
futile failure has left. !
Kadaitcha Man
> Faggotnuts
> Faggotnuts
> Faggotnuts
> Faggotnuts
> Faggotnuts
Were your parents disappointed in you when they found out? Or were they
relieved at the likelihood that you might never breed had been greatly
increased?
fasgnadh
> In article <JykZm.64765$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Virgil wrote:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:18:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>>>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That particular tool was used for both - that's what I was comparing.
>>>>>>> The results are obviously different.
>>>> >>
>>>>>> As I indicated by my statement that "Avatar is nothing whatsoever like
>>>>>> Polar Express".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm so sorry you missed that. Please do forgive me. it was obviously
>>>>>> my fault, because you quite obviously know everything, even about
>>>>>> conditions on planets several light years away
>>>>> Interesting. What is it that I quite obviously know? (And why
>>>>> didn't I tell me about it?)
>>>>>
>>>> It's really quite simple: she is embarrassed at being caught out
>>>> and is doing the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from
>>>> her humiliation.
>> Engaging in a battle of wits with atheists is fighting unarmed opponents!
>>
>> All they have left is feeble, unoriginal, parroted imitation,
>
> Quoting the Bible is, of course, so creative and original...
That would be relevant, if, and only if, I was
quoting the Bible! B^p
I wasn't, and even if I was, you are an imbecile
who cannot distinguish between a properly cited reference
to source material to support an original argument,
and a STRAIGHT FORWARD ATHEIST FORGERY, where
Virgil simply cuts and pastes my witty riposte and replaces
the subject's name, and than FALSELY attributes his childish
imitation to me. That is pure PRIMARY SCHOOL "Nyah Nyah no YOU are"!!!
Priceless!
And you are either a juvenile of identical stupidity or a
moral defective just like that other lying atheist piece of shit.
Which is it, Bill? B^]
Instead of reason, or wit, you give us another simply idiotic,
feeble attempt to defend desperate atheist forgeries and lies.
Aren't you ashamed to be so pathetically false? .. and aligned
with such worthless trash as this lying hate-filled bigot,
Virgil the serial atheist forger:
>> this example was posted by Virgil the serial post forger who
>> attributed it to me;
>>
>> > It's really quite simple: Faggotnuts is embarrassed
>> > at being caught out and is doing the Dance of
>> > the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from
>> > its humiliation.
>>
>> When atheism relies on such desperate duplicity, it has lost!
BTW, it is moronic to imply, as Bill the Dill suggests, that citing
reference material is unoriginal.
No one claims that EVERY utterance must be original, otherwise we
could not refer to the works of great scientists, or philosophers
or spiritual leaders.. but most decent folk understand the
difference between properly attributed QUOTATION, and the forgery
and DELIBERATE mis-attribution by atheists documented here.
>>>> Feeble facetiousness is all she has left.
>> Facile fabrication and forged falsehoods are all any atheist has left!
>>
>> They are a spent force. B^]
I guess I am wasting my time expecting ANY rational debate
from atheists.. EVERY atheist in Usenet has demonstrated, on
numerous occasions, that they are as intellectually
and morally bankrupt as these two atheist shiptigs.. the finest
alt.atheism has to offer!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAAAA
>>
>>>> You pointed out the same software tool was used in both movies,
>>>> she continues rabbiting on about the ways in which the films
>>>> are NOT the same, in a desperate attempt to pretend the thing
>>>> they have in common does not exist! It's hilarious. B^]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Similar to the 'Broken-Wing' performance a mother bird will
>>>> perform to distract predators from it's vulnerable nest, only
>>>> the human version involves nudity and a lit newspaper.
>>>>
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Virgil wrote:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:18:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>>>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That particular tool was used for both - that's what I was
>>>>>>> comparing.
>>>>>>> The results are obviously different.
>>>> >>
>>>>>> As I indicated by my statement that "Avatar is nothing whatsoever
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> Polar Express".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm so sorry you missed that. Please do forgive me. it was
>>>>>> obviously my fault, because you quite
>>>>>> obviously know everything, even about
>>>>>> conditions on planets several light years away
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. What is it that I quite obviously know? (And why
>>>>> didn't I tell me about it?)
Of course, Bukakke RAN AWAY from defending her falsehoods.
>>>> It's really quite simple: she is embarrassed at being caught out
>>>> and is doing the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from
>>>> her humiliation.
>>
>> Engaging in a battle of wits with atheists is fighting unarmed
>> opponents!
>>
>> All they have left is feeble, unoriginal, parroted imitation,
>> this example was posted by Virgil the serial post forger who
>> attributed it to me;
>>
>> > It's really quite simple: Faggotnuts is embarrassed
>> > at being caught out and is doing the Dance of
>> > the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from
>> > its humiliation.
>>
>> When atheism relies on such desperate duplicity, it has lost!
And that is atheism remains a tiny, distrusted and despised
minority, because they exhibit the worst attributes of a CULT!
Most decent folk understand the difference RATIONAL debate
supported by peer reviewed historical data and
properly attributed QUOTATION, on one hand, and the forgery
and DELIBERATE mis-attribution by atheists documented here.
>>>>> Feeble facetiousness is all she has left.
>>>
>>> Facile fabrication and forged falsehoods are all any
>>> atheist has left!
>>>
>>> They are a spent force. B^]
I guess I am wasting my time expecting ANY rational debate
from atheists.. EVERY atheist in Usenet has demonstrated, on
numerous occasions, that they are as intellectually
and morally bankrupt as these lying atheist shiptigs.. Virgil
and Bukakke, the finest alt.atheism has to offer!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAAAA
>>>
>>>>> You pointed out the same software tool was used in both movies,
>>>>> she continues rabbiting on about the ways in which the films
>>>>> are NOT the same, in a desperate attempt to pretend the thing
>>>>> they have in common does not exist! It's hilarious. B^]
* DOFA - Similar to the 'Broken-Wing' performance a mother bird will
perform to distract predators from it's vulnerable nest, only
the human version involves nudity and a lit newspaper.
Bukakke's dance involves mock indignation to cover her lies,
Virgils is bare faced lying, repeated as if repetition will
somehow multiply his credibility.. B^D
Twice Zero is still Zero! B^]
I leave Virgil's pathetic post forging to embarass the entire
atheist community with the desperate dishonisty of their
leading intellectual:
@ This is another atheist forgery brought to you by the
@ sad, pathetic deviants of alt.atheism, who cannot mount
@ a decent argument because they are too busy mounting each other:
@
@ > In article <JykZm.64765$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
@ > fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
@ >
@ >
@ > Engaging in a battle of wits with Faggotnuts is fighting an unarmed
@ > opponent!
@ >
@ > All Faggotnuts has left is feeble, unoriginal, parroted imitation of
@ > sanity.
@ >> > It's really quite simple: Faggotnuts is embarrassed at being
@ >> > caught out and is doing the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to
@ >> > distract from his humongous humiliation.
@ >
@ > When Faggotnuts falsehoods rely on such desperate duplicity, he has
lost!
@ >
@ > Facile fabrication and forged falsehoods are all Faggotnuts the
@ > futile failure has left. !
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
I OWN this NG and all it's feeble minded drones are my Thralls!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAA
[Evil laugh of the NEW Warlord! B^]
Agnostics have long exerted intellectual and moral superiority
over atheists, just as we have NUMERIC superiority!!
They are just LOUDER, as befits a pack of screeching hysterics! B^]
# Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
# -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
# fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
#
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups:
# alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,aus.politics,
# alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
#
# American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
#
# "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
#
# 2001 2008
#
# Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)
#
# Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
#
# Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
#
# Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
#
#
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!
#
#
# 0.7% of Americans!! B^D 2.3% worldwide!!! B^D
#
# 'NON-RELIGIOUS' DOES NOT = ATHEIST, YOU DISHONEST CRETINS!
#
#
# EVEN WE AGNOSTICS BEAT YOU!!! **AND** they grew FASTER!!!! B^D
Atheists: Only 4% of non-believers- 96% of non-believers reject atheism!
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> lied:
> > Quoting the Bible is, of course, so creative and original...
>
>
> That would be relevant, if, and only if, I was
> quoting the Bible!
Not at all. It would also be relevant if you misquoted the bible.
>
> Priceless!
Actually, Falsenuts is unable to distinguish between something being
priceless, like non-theism, and its being worthless, like all his own
posts.
> >> this example was posted by Virgil abut me:
> >>
> >> > It's really quite simple: Faggotnuts is embarrassed at being
> >> > caught out and is doing the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to
> >> > distract from his humiliation.
> >>
Virgil
fasgnadh wrote another witless forgery:
> Virgil wrote:
> > fasgnadhwrote another witless forgery:
> >
> >> Virgil wrote:
> >>> fasgnadhwrote another witless forgery:
> >>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:18:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >>>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> That particular tool was used for both - that's what I was
> >>>>>>> comparing. The results are obviously different.
> >>>> >>
> >>>>>> As I indicated by my statement that "Avatar is nothing
> >>>>>> whatsoever like Polar Express".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm so sorry you missed that. Please do forgive me. it was
> >>>>>> obviously my fault, because you quite obviously know
> >>>>>> everything, even about conditions on planets several light
> >>>>>> years away
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Interesting. What is it that I quite obviously know? (And
> >>>>> why didn't I tell me about it?)
>
Of course, FalseNuts RUNS AWAY from defending his falsehoods by
snipping all proofs of their falsehood and substituting his lies.
>
>
It's really quite simple: Falsenuts is embarrassed at being caught out
in so many lies and in such unprincipled hate-mongering and is doing
the Dance of the Flaming Arseholes* to distract from his degradation.
> >> When FalseNuts relies on such desperate duplicity, he has lost!
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> # Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
> #
> # American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
> #
> # "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
> #
> # 2001 2008
> #
> # Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)
> #
> # Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
> #
> # Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
> #
> # Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
.
Quadibloc
> Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the idea of
> an immaterial soul that animates human consciousness. And there is a
> significant body of evidence that strongly suggests the contrary.
That depends on what you mean by "immaterial". I don't think that
Microsoft Word weighs anything. But that doesn't mean I think it is
supernatural. While I accept that consciousness is a natural
consequence of the organization and activity of energy and matter in
the human brain, that it doesn't quite fit with "energy" or "matter"
or "information" as we understand them is also true. I don't expect to
find consciousness in the quantum-mechanical wave function, or the
general-relativistic curvature of space, but it may indeed exist in a
realm of the natural world that is a little bit outside of the natural
world that we at this time know and understand... although in a less
crudely physical way.
John Savard
Mike Schilling
>
> That depends on what you mean by "immaterial". I don't think that
> Microsoft Word weighs anything. But that doesn't mean I think it is
> supernatural.
Youi clearly don't recognize the spawn of Satan when you see it.
Quadibloc
wrote:
All right, so 2.0 was the last decent release. I thought it was a good
generic example of a computer application program that would be
familiar to most people.
Of course, it might bring bad luck when it crosses one's path...
(ObSF, or at least ObST: Isis - although I thought her name, at least
as a human, and not a cat, was Emiasis or something like that.)
John Savard
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:54bfcbfc-d990-4287...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
John Savard
This years Darwin Awards
Yes, it's that magical time of year again when the Darwin Awards are
bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us.
Here is the glorious winner:
1. When his 38 caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended
victim during a hold-up in Long Beach , California would-be robber James
Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel
and tried the trigger again. This time it worked.
And now, the honorable mentions:
2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat
cutting machine and after a little shopping around, submitted a claim to his
insurance company. The company expecting negligence sent out one of its men
to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and he also lost a finger.
The chef's claim was approved.
3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car
during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had
taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.
4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus
driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting
from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence,
the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a
free ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling
the staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre
fantasies. The deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.
5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious
head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he received the
injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he
could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.
6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the
man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk
promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving
the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the
drawer... $15. [If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a
crime committed?]
7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided
that he'd just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some
booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at
the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the
head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of
Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape.
8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man
grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman
was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within
minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and
drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to
stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's
her. That's the lady I stole the purse from."
9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti , Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun, and demanded
cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn't open the cash
register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk
said they weren't available for breakfast. The man, frustrated, walked away.
10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on
a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for. Police arrived at
the scene to find a very sick man curled up next to a motor home near
spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man admitted to trying to
steal gasoline, but he plugged his siphon hose into the motor home's sewage
tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined to press charges saying
that it was the best laugh he'd ever had.
Marcus L. Rowland
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> writes
VERY stories and/or urban myths.
--
Marcus L. Rowland www.forgottenfutures.com
www.forgottenfutures.org
www.forgottenfutures.co.uk
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
Taemon
> On Dec 25, 2:26 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> quoted, in part:
>> Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the
>> idea of an immaterial soul that animates human consciousness. And
>> there is a significant body of evidence that strongly suggests the
>> contrary.
> That depends on what you mean by "immaterial". I don't think that
> Microsoft Word weighs anything. But that doesn't mean I think it is
> supernatural. While I accept that consciousness is a natural
> consequence of the organization and activity of energy and matter in
> the human brain, that it doesn't quite fit with "energy" or "matter"
> or "information" as we understand them is also true.
I don't think that is true. Why do you think so?
> I don't expect to find consciousness in the quantum-mechanical wave
> function, or the
> general-relativistic curvature of space, but it may indeed exist in a
> realm of the natural world that is a little bit outside of the natural
> world that we at this time know and understand... although in a less
> crudely physical way.
Consciousness - being conscious - is a function of brain organisation. That
we don't know yet how that works exactly doesn't by any means mean that it
is outside the natural realm. It only means we don't know yet.
T.
D.F. Manno
<54bfcbfc-d990-4287...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> That depends on what you mean by "immaterial". I don't think that
> Microsoft Word weighs anything.
According to Amazon, Microsoft Word weighs 8.8 ounces:
<http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-059-05468-Word-2007/dp/B000HCZ8GW/ref=sr
_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1262562829&sr=8-4>
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)
Mavisbeacon
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> talks with her mouth full:
>>> >>
>>>>> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the
>>>>> phsyics
>>>>> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently
>>>>> "floating" -
>>>>> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
>>>>> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
>>>>> : can.any.rocks.float.
>> Some boats are made of concrete,
>
> Some heads are made of wood, apparently.
>
> Are you claiming the "floating mountains" are hollow
> and float by displacing the thin breathable atmosphere of Pandora? B^]
No Im claiming nothing about Pandora or any other persons work of fiction.
Im claiming that rock could float.
"under no circumstnaces,: anywher in teh unvierse under no conditions
whatsoever: can.any.rocks.float." isnt a true statement.
>
> Why don't you demonstrate your theory by posting to
> youtube your success with a concrete balloon! B^D
It isnt necessary to make a concrete ballon or to travel to the far side of
the universe to prove that something COULD be within the bounds of
possibility.
>
>
> > and one could float an asteroid on a lake
>> of Mercury.
>
>
> Are you claiming the atmosphere on Pandora is Mercury?
Again Im not claiming anything about Pandora.
>
> How come we see so much detail through it, and how
> do the inhabitants move so quickly through it.
I havent seen the movie and know little or nothing about it.
>
> and WHY do their flying machines have propellers,
> if they can just 'displace' their own volume of 'Mercury'!?
>
I dont know! I didnt make any claims about the movie just about the claim
that ""under no circumstnaces,: anywher in teh unvierse under no conditions
whatsoever: can.any.rocks.float." which is a sweeping statement. they can
float.
Virgil
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pRZYm.64608$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Mavisbeacon wrote:
> >> fasgnadh wrote:
> >>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> talks with her mouth full:
> >>> >>
> >>>>> : Let's completely forget that he doesn't know a thing about the
> >>>>> phsyics
> >>>>> : of this planet nor of the materials that were fapparently
> >>>>> "floating" -
> >>>>> : becuaser you all know as well as I do tha tunder no circumstnaces,
> >>>>> : anywher eint eh unvierse under no conditions whatsoever
> >>>>> : can.any.rocks.float.
> [snip]
> >> Some boats are made of concrete,
> >
> > Some heads are made of wood, apparently.
> >
> > Are you claiming the "floating mountains" are hollow
> > and float by displacing the thin breathable atmosphere of Pandora? B^]
>
> No Im claiming nothing about Pandora or any other persons work of fiction.
> Im claiming that rock could float.
> "under no circumstnaces,: anywher in teh unvierse under no conditions
> whatsoever: can.any.rocks.float." isnt a true statement.
After certain volcanic eruptions, the surrounding seas are sometimes
littered with floating rocks.
This was noted by the Romans after Vesuvius went bang, and also by
sailors in the area after the Kakatoa bang.
Mavisbeacon
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-654D30....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
i would think you mean "during" and not "After" eruption.
There would have to be molten magma for the rocks to float.
>
> This was noted by the Romans after Vesuvius went bang, and also by
> sailors in the area after the Kakatoa bang.
I doubt it since The locals were killed by the Earthquake which preceeded
the Eruption!
Also Herculanium and Pompeii were covered in several feet of ash and poision
gas rather than lava werent they?
Well ther was lava but only in Herculanium.
http://www.romanhomes.com/your_roman_vacation/quarters/pompeii-herculaneum.htm
Tim McGaughy
That can be your little secret.
Pumice floats.
Lamey the Cable Guy
wrote:
So does Ivory soap.
--
Usenet lits score:
GIT-R-DONE!
alt.usenet.legends.lamey
AUK Offishal Tinfoil Sombrero award 05/07
Sweetness Seal Of Approval #3
#20 Usenet asshole
#6 Lits Slut
#9 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
<Approved by Lionel>
#11 Most posting trolls/hunters/flonkers 2007
#1 Disenfranchised AUK Kookologist.
#1 AUK Galactic Killfile Award
< we all know how well that works...LOL >
Co-inventer of the "Prongtard Yap-Dog Award"
<working on one of them specheel AUK awards>
St. Lamey - Patron Saint Of Bridges, Underpasses and Caves
< This space for rent >
Mavisbeacon
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-654D30....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
Aha! Mayybe you are right, does pumice float? But what is a stone and what
is a rock? Maybe we are onto the "Petros/kephos" discussion LOL?
>
> This was noted by the Romans after Vesuvius went bang, and also by
> sailors in the area after the Kakatoa bang.
By which Romans? Pliny? 35 kms away?
Spartan613
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
news:8f9b0$4b4497b6$bc8d1d47$18...@news.upc.ie...
Floating rocks were evident in Rabaul Harbour after the last big eruption
there a few years ago. It's no big deal. They're simply very light and
displace more than they weigh.
How do you think a steel aircraft carrier manages to stay afloat.
--
"There's no shortcut to anywhere worth going".
Mavisbeacon
"Spartan613" <nos...@buggeroff.com> wrote in message
news:lLa1n.67327$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Actually to be correct a floating body displaces its own weight of fluid
not MORE than its
weight.
>
> How do you think a steel aircraft carrier manages to stay afloat.
Its average density is lessened by being filled with air so that the weight
of the carrier is less than than the amount of water it displaces?
I mean if you filled it with water it wouldnt float would it?
Similar for pumice. But it isnt a boulder rock or a mountain.
I dont require a lesson in fluid physics thank you.
John F. Eldredge
Herculaneum was buried by a pyroclastic flow, so there were very few
survivors. Pompeii was buried more gradually, by ash fall, so a good
many people did manage to escape.
Pumice is filled with gas bubbles; think of Styrofoam made of rock
instead of polystyrene.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Greg Goss
>> After certain volcanic eruptions, the surrounding seas are sometimes
>> littered with floating rocks.
>
>i would think you mean "during" and not "After" eruption.
>There would have to be molten magma for the rocks to float.
Um, no.
http://images.google.com/images?q=pumice%20floats
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27