Scott Balneave explains how atheism is part of communist ideology and its unspeakable evil

[fasgnadh]

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states
committed" and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used
state-sponsored atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were atheists:
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider - Scott Balneave,

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o



"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest

[fasgnadh]

On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:

> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>>
>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>
>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>
>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>
>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>

> Really?

Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.

Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;


" every ... �atheist society� has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]

> who gives a shit?

1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
official atheist website refers to atheist states "killing and
opressing it's citizens".

You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
the poor spelling, or just check the website to confirm THOSE
ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.

2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it

3. decent folk everywhere.

4. Not atheists, clearly, they all support and defend the grubby
little atheist Spokes-Orc, shown here wearing Chairman Mao's
obese carcase for his appearance at the atheist convention in Vegas
as an atheist tyrant;

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476

He couldn't fit through the bus doors and had to be rolled down the
street to his gig as a Mao impersonator!

>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA
>>
>>
>> So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]
>>
>> Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
>> hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states
>> committed" and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used
>> state-sponsored atheism as a tool" ibid
>>
>> All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were atheists:
>> Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk
>>
>> The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider - Scott Balneave,
>>
>> https://twitter.com/sbalneav
>>
>> ...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
>> full of children for lunch:
>>
>> http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o
>>
>>
>>
>> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
>> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>
>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>>
>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>>
>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>>
>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>>

--

---------

" every ... �atheist society� has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states committed"
and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used state-sponsored
atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were
atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider: Scott Balneave..

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o

A passer by who had to cross the road to get by him quipped;

"DAMN, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN PREGNANT!" B^D

[Syd M.]

On Mar 12, 1:05 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>
> >> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>
> >>    - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
> >>        http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>
> >> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>
> >>    "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
> >>        -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
>  > Really?
>
> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.
>
>

Just refuse to stop your hateful lying, I see.

PDW

[fasgnadh]

On 13/03/2013 6:55 AM, Syd M. wrote:

> On 13/03/2013 4:05 AM, fasgnadh wrote:> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>> >>
>>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>>
>>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>>>
>>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>>
>>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>
>> > Really?
>>
>> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.
>>

>> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
>> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
>> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>>
>>

>> " every ... “atheist society” has been an

>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>
>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]
>>
>>> who gives a shit?
>>
>> 1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
>> official atheist website refers to atheist states "killing and
>> opressing it's citizens".
>>
>> You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
>> the poor spelling, or just check the website to confirm THOSE
>> ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
>> the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.
>>
>> 2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it
>>
>> 3. decent folk everywhere.
>>
>> 4. Not atheists, clearly, they all support and defend the grubby
>> little atheist Spokes-Orc, shown here wearing Chairman Mao's
>> obese carcase for his appearance at the atheist convention in Vegas
>> as an atheist tyrant;
>>
>> http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476
>>
>> He couldn't fit through the bus doors and had to be rolled down the
>> street to his gig as a Mao impersonator!
>

> Just refuse to stop

He didn't want to miss playing his hero, the corpulent atheist tyrant

> I see.


No you don't, you dont GET the joke, you ARE the joke!

>>>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]
>>>>
>>>> Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
>>>> hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states
>>>> committed" and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used
>>>> state-sponsored atheism as a tool" ibid
>>>>
>>>> All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were atheists:
>>>> Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk
>>>>
>>>> The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider - Scott Balneave,
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/sbalneav
>>>>
>>>> ...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
>>>> full of children for lunch:
>>>>
>>>> http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
>>>> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>>>>



--

---------

" every ... “atheist society” has been an

evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, quoted from the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

[felix_unger]

On 13-March-2013 4:05 AM, fasgnadh wrote:

> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:
>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
> >>
>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>
>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>>
>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>
>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>
> > Really?
>
> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.
>
> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>
>

> " every ... “atheist society” has been an

> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>
> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]

This 'Official Atheist Website' now states that I post to
alt.agnosticism; which is what I've been saying for yonks, in response
to atheists who keep observing that you and I both seem to post at the
same time, and comment about it as if it's some great mystery, or some
diabolical plan hatched in secret talks as part of an overall strategy
to destroy the atheist presence on the www! But now that this 'Official
Atheist Website' 'officially' states it to be a fact that I post in
alt.agnosticism, maybe these atheists will believe it, and cease with
the conspiracy theories. What's more the 'Official Atheist Website'
states "the vast majority of the threads [in alt.agnosticism] have all
been started by fasgnadh". Well how about that! does it not seem
reasonable then, that since (a) the vast majority of threads in
alt.agnosticism have been started by you, and (b) I post in
alt.agnosticism, that (c) I might reply to your posts?? Well duh! So
perhaps now the doubting thomases in AA who seem to think that there's
(a) some great mystery why our posts often appear together, or (b)
there's some malicious or nefarious purpose why they do, or (c) you and
I are actually the same person, might (d) finally understand that the
real reason is a rather simple one.

>
> > who gives a shit?
>
> 1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
> official atheist website refers to atheist states "killing and
> opressing it's citizens".
>
> You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
> the poor spelling, or just check the website to confirm THOSE
> ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
> the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.
>
> 2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it
>
> 3. decent folk everywhere.
>
> 4. Not atheists, clearly,

absolutely!

rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[raven1]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:07:30 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:

Serious question here. Are you also "agnostic" about unicorns,
leprechauns, and goblins? If so, why? If not, why does the notion of
deities get special treatment?

[fasgnadh]

On 14/03/2013 12:07 AM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 13-March-2013 4:05 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>> >>
>>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>>
>>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>>>
>>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>>
>>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>
>> > Really?
>>
>> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.
>>
>> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
>> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
>> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>>
>>

>> " every ... �atheist society� has been an

>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>
>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]
>
> This 'Official Atheist Website' now states that I post to
> alt.agnosticism; which is what I've been saying for yonks, in response
> to atheists who keep observing that you and I both seem to post at the
> same time, and comment about it as if it's some great mystery, or some
> diabolical plan hatched in secret talks as part of an overall strategy
> to destroy the atheist presence on the www! But now that this 'Official
> Atheist Website' 'officially' states it to be a fact that I post in
> alt.agnosticism, maybe these atheists will believe it, and cease with
> the conspiracy theories. What's more the 'Official Atheist Website'
> states "the vast majority of the threads [in alt.agnosticism] have all
> been started by fasgnadh". Well how about that! does it not seem
> reasonable then, that since (a) the vast majority of threads in
> alt.agnosticism have been started by you, and (b) I post in
> alt.agnosticism, that (c) I might reply to your posts?? Well duh! So
> perhaps now the doubting thomases in AA who seem to think that there's
> (a) some great mystery why our posts often appear together, or (b)
> there's some malicious or nefarious purpose why they do, or (c) you and
> I are actually the same person, might (d) finally understand that the
> real reason is a rather simple one.

Atheists spend a great deal of time avoiding the SUBSTANCE of issues
and complaining that people discuss in discussion groups!
They complain about the format of others posts, the length,
the NGs posted to, they speculate endlessly on the posters identity,
they project beliefs onto them, they misrepresent the views of others,
rather than DEAL DIRECTLY with what is presented to them, they fabricate
and put words into the mouths of their opponents and
then whine when they are mocked for it.

---------

" every ... �atheist society� has been an

evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, quoted from the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states committed"
and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used state-sponsored
atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were
atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider: Scott Balneave..

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o

[fasgnadh]

On 13/03/2013 9:31 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:
>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>

>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>
>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>
>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>
>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

>> Really?

Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.

Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;


" every ... �atheist society� has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]

> "Communism is bad, atheism is an essential part of Communism,
>
>>>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

>> who gives a shit?

1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
official atheist website refers to atheist states "killing and
opressing it's citizens".

You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
the poor spelling, or just check the website to confirm THOSE
ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.

2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it

3. decent folk everywhere.

4. Not atheists, clearly, they all support and defend the grubby

little atheist Spokes-Orc, shown here wearing Chairman Mao's
obese carcase for his appearance at the atheist convention in Vegas
as an atheist tyrant;

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476

He couldn't fit through the bus doors and had to be rolled down the
street to his gig as a Mao impersonator!



>>>

>>> So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]
>>>
>>> Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
>>> hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states
>>> committed" and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used
>>> state-sponsored atheism as a tool" ibid
>>>
>>> All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were atheists:
>>> Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk
>>>
>>> The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider - Scott Balneave,
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/sbalneav
>>>
>>> ...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
>>> full of children for lunch:
>>>
>>> http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
>>> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>
>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>>>
>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>>>
>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>>>
>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>>>

--

---------

" every ... �atheist society� has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, quoted from the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states committed"
and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used state-sponsored
atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were
atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider: Scott Balneave..

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 13-March-2013 4:05 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>> >>
>>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>>
>>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>>>
>>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>>
>>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>
>> > Really?
>>
>> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.
>>
>> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
>> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
>> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>>
>>

>> " every ... ???atheist society??? has been an

>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>
>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]
>
> This 'Official Atheist Website' now states that I post to
> alt.agnosticism; which is what I've been saying for yonks, in response
> to atheists who keep observing that you and I both seem to post at the
> same time, and comment about it as if it's some great mystery, or some
> diabolical plan hatched in secret talks as part of an overall strategy
> to destroy the atheist presence on the www! But now that this 'Official
> Atheist Website' 'officially' states it to be a fact that I post in
> alt.agnosticism, maybe these atheists will believe it, and cease with
> the conspiracy theories. What's more the 'Official Atheist Website'
> states "the vast majority of the threads [in alt.agnosticism] have all
> been started by fasgnadh". Well how about that! does it not seem
> reasonable then, that since (a) the vast majority of threads in
> alt.agnosticism have been started by you, and (b) I post in
> alt.agnosticism, that (c) I might reply to your posts?? Well duh! So
> perhaps now the doubting thomases in AA who seem to think that there's
> (a) some great mystery why our posts often appear together, or (b)
> there's some malicious or nefarious purpose why they do, or (c) you and
> I are actually the same person, might (d) finally understand that the
> real reason is a rather simple one.

That doesn't, however, explain why you seem to be backing up fasgnadh's
demonstrably wrong thesis about "atheist societies". I posted on this in the
other thread.

I updated the entry because, as facts change, the rational person updates their
view. Keep in mind also, "TrollPedia" is mostly satire, meant to poke fun at
some of our sillier trolls; I limit myself to what they've posted ON THIS
NEWSGROUP, and don't start hunting around for online pictures (with the
exception of Jahnu, who posted his famous picture himself). We don't doc-drop,
or post IP addresses of people there, we keep it to what they've revealed about
themselves in the newsgroup. fasgnadh's never posted a picture of himself, nor
have you to my knowledge. That's why fasgnadh's picture is a B^D.

Trollpedia is about poking fun at the arguments you make, and so far, you
appear to be backing up fasgnadh's incorrect arguments.

>
>>
>> > who gives a shit?
>>
>> 1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
>> official atheist website refers to atheist states "killing and
>> opressing it's citizens".
>>
>> You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
>> the poor spelling, or just check the website to confirm THOSE
>> ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
>> the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.
>>
>> 2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it
>>
>> 3. decent folk everywhere.
>>
>> 4. Not atheists, clearly,
>
> absolutely!

Sure thing, Spike.

--
(` |) | Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
_) |) | -- Leonardo da Vinci
a.a #2171 |

[felix_unger]

There's no great mystery to it. I simply agree with him. I rebutted your
arguments in another post. Here's what I said to save you the trouble of
looking it up:

"So lets see.. The leaders were atheists, they implemented social orders
that had atheism as an integral part, and they used atheism as a tool,
but according to sbalneav they weren't atheist states, and the fact that
the leaders were atheists was irrelevant. hmmmmm... Do I buy that? well,
no! The point of the matter is if they weren't atheists, if for example
they were christian, would they have created the societies they did, and
committed the mass murders and atrocities they did? well, no! so
therefore the fact that they were atheists is entirely relevant.
atheists did what atheists do"

> I posted on this in the
> other thread.
>
> I updated the entry because, as facts change, the rational person updates their
> view. Keep in mind also, "TrollPedia" is mostly satire, meant to poke fun at
> some of our sillier trolls;

It's much more than that. It criticises their arguments.

> I limit myself to what they've posted ON THIS
> NEWSGROUP, and don't start hunting around for online pictures

if ppl identify themselves online with their name and photo, it's for
anyone to see if it's not made private. if you don't want your picture
on my site, which was linked in this ng btw, then just say so and I'll
delete it.

> (with the
> exception of Jahnu, who posted his famous picture himself). We don't doc-drop,
> or post IP addresses of people there, we keep it to what they've revealed about
> themselves in the newsgroup. fasgnadh's never posted a picture of himself, nor
> have you to my knowledge.

I don't put any info about myself online. I've already had two crazies
trying to identify me simply because of what I've posted.

> That's why fasgnadh's picture is a B^D.
>
> Trollpedia is about poking fun at the arguments you make, and so far, you
> appear to be backing up fasgnadh's incorrect arguments.
>
>>>> who gives a shit?
>>> 1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
>>> official atheist website refers to atheist states "killing and
>>> opressing it's citizens".
>>>
>>> You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
>>> the poor spelling, or just check the website to confirm THOSE
>>> ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
>>> the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.
>>>
>>> 2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it
>>>
>>> 3. decent folk everywhere.
>>>
>>> 4. Not atheists, clearly,
>> absolutely!
> Sure thing, Spike.

did these atheist states do what fasgnadh claims or not? the correct
answer is yes they did. did western 'christian' democracies do likewise?
no they didn't.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rub�iy�t of Omar Khayy�m
http://www.facebook.com/SupportTonyAbbott

[felix_unger]

On 14-March-2013 12:41 AM, raven1 wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:07:30 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
> wrote:
>
> Serious question here. Are you also "agnostic" about unicorns,
> leprechauns, and goblins?

no. where's the evidence for them?

> If so, why? If not, why does the notion of
> deities get special treatment?

to my mind it not a question of deities, but deity- God. and the reason
is because of the evidence- billions of believers, writings, testimony,
etc.,


--
rgds,

Pete
-------

[raven1]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:28:04 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>On 14-March-2013 12:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:07:30 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Serious question here. Are you also "agnostic" about unicorns,
>> leprechauns, and goblins?
>
>no. where's the evidence for them?

The same place as the evidence for deities, apparently.

>
>> If so, why? If not, why does the notion of
>> deities get special treatment?
>
>to my mind it not a question of deities, but deity- God. and the reason
>is because of the evidence- billions of believers,

Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.

> writings,

Appeal to Authority fallacy.

> testimony,

Often wildly contradictory. If this is what you consider "evidence",
you might as well be agnostic towards unicorns, leprechauns, and
goblins too.

[sbalneav]

They weren't since there was MUCH MORE policy involved apart from atheism.
Atheism doesn't, for instance, demand the collectivization of the means of
production. Communism DOES. They were COMMUNIST states. That atheism is a
part of Communist doctrine, no one's arguing. But to say they were "atheist
states" mis-represents what the states were. So, no, I don't agree that you
rebutted this.

> and the fact that
> the leaders were atheists was irrelevant. hmmmmm... Do I buy that? well,
> no! The point of the matter is if they weren't atheists, if for example
> they were christian, would they have created the societies they did, and
> committed the mass murders and atrocities they did? well, no!

Again, arguably wrong. Hitler was a member of the Catholic Church, and *very
specifically* states in Mein Kampf that he's doing what he's doing to the Jews
BECAUSE of his theism:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the
work of the Lord."

-- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

Every single German soldier in world war II war a belt buckle with "Gott Mit
Uns" on it (God With Us). The Third Reich worked closely with the Vatican,
which actually supported some of it's actions against the "Godless Communists".

Would it be fair to characterize Nazi Germany as "A Theist State"? Of course
not. It grossly oversimplifies, and in doing so, creates a fallacy.

> so
> therefore the fact that they were atheists is entirely relevant.
> atheists did what atheists do"

And, therefore, by extention, it would be fair to say, by looking at current
"Theist States" around the world, that "Theists did what theists do", correct?

>> I posted on this in the
>> other thread.
>>
>> I updated the entry because, as facts change, the rational person updates their
>> view. Keep in mind also, "TrollPedia" is mostly satire, meant to poke fun at
>> some of our sillier trolls;
>
> It's much more than that. It criticises their arguments.

Arguments are *meant* to be criticized. That's how one arrives at "the truth".

>> I limit myself to what they've posted ON THIS
>> NEWSGROUP, and don't start hunting around for online pictures
>
> if ppl identify themselves online with their name and photo, it's for
> anyone to see if it's not made private. if you don't want your picture
> on my site, which was linked in this ng btw, then just say so and I'll
> delete it.

Not at all. I thought your write up on me was quite complimentary, in fact.

http://theangryatheist.weebly.com/sbalneav.html

Hence part of the reason why I updated what I wrote about you. We've had LOTS
of theists here who employ sockpuppetry as a regular basis.

Let me be clear: I don't hate either YOU or fasgnadh *as people*. I wish NONE
of our trolls any harm. But in this case, your *reasoning*, which appears to
be the same as fasgnadh's, is *flawed*, and I disagree with it strongly.

<snip>

> did these atheist states do what fasgnadh claims or not?

They are not *atheist states* any more than the Third Reich was a *theist
state*.

> the correct
> answer is yes they did. did western 'christian' democracies do likewise?
> no they didn't.

Because you're comparing a totalitarian regime to a democracy.

How does a western "Christian" democracy stack up to Nazi Germany?

--
(` |) | To add a library to a house is to give that house a soul.
_) |) | -- Cicero
a.a #2171 |

[fasgnadh]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On 13/03/2013 9:31 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>

>> wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>

>>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>>
>>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
> >>
>>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>>
>>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>

>>> Really?

Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.

Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;

" every ... �atheist society� has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing(sic) it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]

(the bad spelling occurs because Scott ate the missing 'p'! 8^o )

Ravin1 is one of the few atheists that have moments of honesty and
remorse

>> "Communism is bad, atheism is an essential part of Communism,

# From: raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Anyone seen Hysteria, Abu Baker Bashir
# and Kelsey Bjarnyard? B^D
# Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:15:11 -0500
# Message-ID: <87ttk498t9sueojr7...@4ax.com>
#
#
# > raven1 wrote:
# >
# >> officially atheistic regimes such as Stalin's

the backwardness and brutality of atheist states explains this;

# From: raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Anyone seen Hysteria, Abu Baker Bashir and Kelsey
Bjarnyard? B^D
# Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:15:11 -0500
# Message-ID: <87ttk498t9sueojr7...@4ax.com>
#
# There has never been a "Great, Enduring Atheist Civilization"


>>>>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

>>
>> who gives a shit?


1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
official atheist website refers to atheist states "killing and
opressing it's citizens".

You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
the poor spelling, or just check the website to confirm THOSE
ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.

2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it

3. decent folk everywhere.

4. Not atheists, clearly, they all support and defend the grubby
little atheist Spokes-Orc, shown here wearing Chairman Mao's
obese carcase for his appearance at the atheist convention in Vegas
as an atheist tyrant;

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476

He couldn't fit through the bus doors and had to be rolled down the
street to his gig as a Mao impersonator!

>

> Not only that - he is remarkably ignorant of the history of Eorope a
> century ago.

Oh Scott doesn't need to KNOW anything, he just makes shit up about you,
then he whines in shame when photos of him eating a busload of basket
ball players for lunch appears; "that can't be me!"

But enough of the facts about dough boy and his denunciation of atheist
states, isn't it time for you try and change the subject and defend them;

> The church was part and parcel of the Tsarist oppression.

You really think that, even if true, it would justify the terror torture
and death of over 40,000,000 people committed by the atheist
tyranny?

What kind of sick moral relativism do you moral defectives run on,
having rejected all traditional values because they come, like
civilisation, from religion!?


> The Tsar was
> a religious loonie who was totally out of touch with the moiod of the
> country, who surrounded himself withsycophantic advisors who told him
> what he wanted to hear.

A bit like the way atheists don't debate me, because they lose, they
huddle together with other likeminded clones from the atheist Borg and
furiously agree with each others misrepresentations OF me! B^D

Look, we all appreciate you want to try an support your atheist states
by pretending that what they replaced was bad (even if not as
unspeakably evil as the atheist holocausts were) but the problem for you
is that the atheistic communists didn't replace the Tzarist governemnt,
the PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, an incipient DEMOCRACY did that,
the Bolsheviks who constructed the Soviet atheist state OVERTHREW the
provisional DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, then the atheist thugs fucked the
entire nation for seventy years, after terrorising torturing and killing
not just the Tzar, but his wife and children, including the
13 year old!!!!

Still no one is surprised that the rest of you atheist defenders of
atheist tyranny are as "remarkably ignorant of the history" and
deliberately false in your propaganda lies supporting your Soviet
comrades, as you claim Scott 'the Blimp' Balneave is.

Bukakke is still running from the occasion where I asked her for
EVIDENCE of her claim that the children, including the young boy,
deserved to be tortured terrorised and murdered by atheist thugs because
they were 'christian' and 'despots'

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/8e03d6bb01bb35c5?hl=en&dmode=source

# 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
Bukakke, still running since 2009! B^D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0kPQiQufpE

Man you atheists and your violent, hate filled anti-theism just NEVER
STOPS, does it:

# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA

Not satisfied with murder, Steve favours GENOCIDE of every
Muslim man woman and child, just for believing in something
the Atheist thugs want to prohibit again, freedom of thought and belief;

# 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

But it's the BLATANT ATHEIST HYPOCRISY which stuns people,
when atheists attack religion for killing a few thousand 'witches'
in the medieval period, when atheists terrorised tortured and killed
over 80,000,000 men women AND CHILDREN in living memory, and
then they try and justify it!

At least the Church, which has done infinite amounts of positive good
(while atheist states were unmitigated unspeakable evil) has had the
decency to APOLOGISE for it's historical mistakes, atheists just
continue to defend and run weak apologetics and holocaust denial for
their much greater crimes against humanity!

Watch the atheists snip and run from the truth.

>>>>
>>>> So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]
>>>>
>>>> Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
>>>> hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states
>>>> committed" and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used
>>>> state-sponsored atheism as a tool" ibid
>>>>
>>>> All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were atheists:
>>>> Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk
>>>>
>>>> The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider - Scott Balneave,
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/sbalneav
>>>>
>>>> ...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
>>>> full of children for lunch:
>>>>
>>>> http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
>>>> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>>>>

--

---------

" every ... �atheist society� has been an

evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, quoted from the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states committed"
and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used state-sponsored
atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were
atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider: Scott Balneave..

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o

[fasgnadh]

On 14/03/2013 3:16 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:28:04 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 14-March-2013 12:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:07:30 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Serious question here.

You must be joking, you have run from the EVIDENCE of atheist state
terror to talk about unicorns?

# "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
#
# - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
# http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
#
# Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
#
# "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
# -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
#
#
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

#
#
# So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]
#
# Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
# hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states
# committed" and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used
# state-sponsored atheism as a tool" ibid
#
# All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were atheists:
# Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk
#
# The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider - Scott Balneave,
#
# https://twitter.com/sbalneav
#
# ...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
# full of children for lunch:
#
# http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o
#
#
#
# "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
# - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
#
# http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
#
# http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
#
# http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
#
# http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest

Are you also "agnostic" about unicorns,
>>> leprechauns, and goblins?
>>
>> no. where's the evidence for them?
>
> The same place as the evidence for deities, apparently.
>>
>>> If so, why? If not, why does the notion of
>>> deities get special treatment?

Because it has concrete support in the real world, it BUILDS
civilisations, atheism destroys them.

>> to my mind it not a question of deities, but deity- God. and the reason
>> is because of the evidence- billions of believers,
>
> Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.

No, the argument is that there are billions of followers because
rational human beings ask "why are those majority religious states
evolving civilisations, including the free open progressive
scientifically advanced rule-of-law, rights based secular democracies,
and those societies follow precepts from revealed religion, whose
messengers in diverse locations and over millennia have all described
the source of their PROVEN wisdom to be.. God.
While atheist regimes which deny those spiritual values and principles,
and their claimed source, are all catastrophic cluster fucks that
couldn't manage a single decent democracy, let alone a great and
enduring civilisation"

Rational people using reason and the scientific method proceed on
the balance of evidence, even if it is not conclusive proof, especially
as the belief systems contain highly rational reasons for why absolute
PROOF is not desirable.

In terms even an atheist might understand, religion has been testred by
history and found to be efficacious, the atheist hypothesis has been
falsified EVERY TIME IT HAS BEEN TRIED IN HISTORY!

Q.E.D.

>> writings,
>
> Appeal to Authority fallacy.

They have authority, and atheists have NONE, based on their
contributions to civilisation, or utter lack of one, respectively;

# From: raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Anyone seen Hysteria, Abu Baker Bashir and Kelsey
Bjarnyard? B^D
# Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:15:11 -0500
# Message-ID: <87ttk498t9sueojr7...@4ax.com>
#
# There has never been a "Great, Enduring Atheist Civilization"

Rational people thoughout the ages operate on the balance of EVIDENCE,
atheists ignore it.

>> testimony,
>
> Often wildly contradictory.

The vast majority of the worlds religious populations share
the same God and a consistent set of core values which is remarkable
given their independent development over vast differences in epoch and
geography;

HINDUISM

"He must show no anger to one who is angry.
He must bless the man who curses him..."

CONFUCIANISM

"Love is its own reward.. Love offers peace...
A heart set on love can do no wrong."

TAOISM

"Repay evil with good..
Heaven arms with love those it would not see destroyed."

BUDDHISM
"If a man foolishly does me a wrong.
I will return to him the protection of my ungrudging love."

JUDAISM

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself..
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land...
thou shalt love him as thyself."

ISLAM

"Verily my love overcometh my anger."

SIKHISM

"Serve ye well all creatures, both big and small.
Give pain to no being that lives and feels."

CHRISTIANITY

"A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another.
As I have loved you, so you shall love one another."

BAHÁ'Í

"..for love is light, no matter in what abode it dwelleth."


Of course any human group will have diversity of perceptions and
opinions (except in atheist totalitarian states, which are also
all remarkably alkike in their consistent terror torture brutality and
manifest FAILURE ;-)

The difference in perspectives over non core matters of form, style and
expression are expressions of the natural diversity which God, if she
exists, clearly loves (see the natural world for further evidence ;-)

This was understood by intelligent observers centuries ago:

THE ONE TRUE LIGHT

Some Hindus bought an elephant, which they exhibited in a dark shed.
As seeing it was impossible, everyone felt it with the palm of his hand.
The hand of one fell on its trunk: he said "This animal is like a water
pipe".
Another touched its ear: to him the creature seemed like a fan.
Another handled its leg and described the elephant as having the shape
of a pillar.
Another stroked its back. "Truly", said he, "this elephant resembles a
throne".
Had each of them held a lighted candle
there would have been no contradiction in their words.



The lamps are different but the Light is the same: it comes from Beyond.
If thou keep looking at the lamp, thou art lost:
for there arises the appearance of number and plurality.
Fix thy gaze upon the Light,
and thou art delivered from the dualism inherent in the finite body.
O thou who art the Kernel of Existence,
the disagreement between Moslem, Zoroastrian and Jew depends upon the
standpoint.

- Jalal'u'Din Rumi (1207 – 1273)

> If this is what you consider "evidence",

Yes. As an agnostic I know it does not constitute CONCLUSIVE PROOF,
but unlike the atheists, I do at least CONSIDER IT, carfefully and
thoughtfully.

you merely resort to mindless non sequiturs and infantile sarcasm;

> you might as well be agnostic towards unicorns, leprechauns, and
> goblins too.

None of them have resulted in the greatest civilisations on the planet,
you utterly foolish atheist moron.

Agnostics could be agnostic toward them, atheists would, if they were
logical and consistent form a club denying their existance, wearing
T-shirts and paying for bus ads denying their existence, setting up
websites to villify and slander people who dared to thiv=nk differently
to the arrogant atheist hubris, and ultimately advocating the murder
and genocide of theists, as you BAAWA thugs openly do, and building
atheist tyrannies based on terror torture death and despair, thus
falsifying the atheist hypothesis.

Q.E.D.

Run along, lightweight, and play with your unicorns and Spaghetti
Mobsters. B^p


--

---------

" every ... “atheist society” has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, quoted from the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states committed"
and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used state-sponsored
atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were
atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider: Scott Balneave..

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o

[felix_unger]

On 14-March-2013 3:16 AM, raven1 wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:28:04 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 14-March-2013 12:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:07:30 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Serious question here. Are you also "agnostic" about unicorns,
>>> leprechauns, and goblins?
>> no. where's the evidence for them?
> The same place as the evidence for deities, apparently.

wrong. unicorns are animals. none exist, and no skeletons or fossils of
any have been found. the evidence is sadly lacking. and what is the
evidence for leprechauns and goblins? you tell me. now contrast this to
billions of ppl believing in God. do billions of ppl believe in
unicorns, leprechauns, and goblins? no. atheists don't consider each
case on it's merits. they just trot out this silly mantra that there's
no evidence for God. Now if you had have asked me if I am agnostic about
extra terrestrial life, I would have said yes, because I believe it's
reasonable that there could exist other planets that could sustain life
forms, possibly or probably very different to us, and so there's good
reason to be agnostic about that.

>>> If so, why? If not, why does the notion of
>>> deities get special treatment?
>> to my mind it not a question of deities, but deity- God. and the reason
>> is because of the evidence- billions of believers,
> Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.

see above

>
>> writings,
> Appeal to Authority fallacy.

see above

>
>> testimony,
> Often wildly contradictory. If this is what you consider "evidence",
> you might as well be agnostic towards unicorns, leprechauns, and
> goblins too.

false argument as explained above

[felix_unger]

Thanks you have answered much better than I can. The fact that you
consistently do so alone should be sufficient to show that we're
different ppl. here's another clue for the sceptics.. you're more
intelligent and knowledgeable than I, and your prose is much better. but
then maybe I'm better looking... :)

> BAH�'�

> - Jalal'u'Din Rumi (1207 � 1273)

>
>
>> If this is what you consider "evidence",
>
> Yes. As an agnostic I know it does not constitute CONCLUSIVE PROOF,
> but unlike the atheists, I do at least CONSIDER IT, carfefully and
> thoughtfully.
>
> you merely resort to mindless non sequiturs and infantile sarcasm;
>
>> you might as well be agnostic towards unicorns, leprechauns, and
>> goblins too.
>
> None of them have resulted in the greatest civilisations on the
> planet, you utterly foolish atheist moron.
>
> Agnostics could be agnostic toward them, atheists would, if they were
> logical and consistent form a club denying their existance, wearing
> T-shirts and paying for bus ads denying their existence, setting up
> websites to villify and slander people who dared to thiv=nk differently
> to the arrogant atheist hubris, and ultimately advocating the murder
> and genocide of theists, as you BAAWA thugs openly do, and building
> atheist tyrannies based on terror torture death and despair, thus
> falsifying the atheist hypothesis.
>
> Q.E.D.
>
> Run along, lightweight, and play with your unicorns and Spaghetti
> Mobsters. B^p
>
>


--

rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

�This election is about trust. The choice before the Australian people could not be clearer. It�s more tax or less. It�s more regulation or less. It�s less competence or more. It�s less freedom or more� - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader

Sept 14th. is National Rubbish Collection day.. ausnet.info/pics/rubbish_collection.jpg

http://www.facebook.com/SupportTonyAbbott

[fasgnadh]

Scat Borg-knave fabricated a strawman and mocked his OWN creation: B^D

> In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 13-March-2013 4:05 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>>>
>>>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>>>
>>>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>
>>> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.
>>>
>>> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
>>> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
>>> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>>>
>>>

>>> " every ..."atheist society" has been an

>>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>>
>>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]
>>
>> This 'Official Atheist Website' now states that I post to
>> alt.agnosticism; which is what I've been saying for yonks, in response
>> to atheists who keep observing that you and I both seem to post at the
>> same time, and comment about it as if it's some great mystery, or some
>> diabolical plan hatched in secret talks as part of an overall strategy
>> to destroy the atheist presence on the www! But now that this 'Official
>> Atheist Website' 'officially' states it to be a fact that I post in
>> alt.agnosticism, maybe these atheists will believe it, and cease with
>> the conspiracy theories. What's more the 'Official Atheist Website'
>> states "the vast majority of the threads [in alt.agnosticism] have all
>> been started by fasgnadh". Well how about that! does it not seem
>> reasonable then, that since (a) the vast majority of threads in
>> alt.agnosticism have been started by you, and (b) I post in
>> alt.agnosticism, that (c) I might reply to your posts?? Well duh! So
>> perhaps now the doubting thomases in AA who seem to think that there's
>> (a) some great mystery why our posts often appear together, or (b)
>> there's some malicious or nefarious purpose why they do, or (c) you and
>> I are actually the same person, might (d) finally understand that the
>> real reason is a rather simple one.
>
> That doesn't, however, explain why you seem to be backing up fasgnadh's
> demonstrably wrong thesis about "atheist societies".

I don't have a thesis about 'atheist societies', Lardarse, YOU DO: B^]

" every ... "atheist society" has been an

evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D

> I posted on this in the other thread.

So you just lied when you claimed it's MY thesis, it's not, it's YOURS!

Did you falsely attribute it to me in that other thread, as you do on
alt.atheism.Borg?

I have not argued that, that is YOUR argument, many people will agree
with you, I can't, because your propaganda lie is FALSE and merely shows:

1. that you 'mock' what you DO NOT UNDERSTAND

2. that you FABRICATE lies and try to attribute them to others.

3. that you are thus a gutless coward who cannot take ownership and
responsibly for your own utter nonsense malign slanders and
cowardice.

4. you are an idiot. B^]

Challenge those facts and I checkmate in One.

"Correct rational analysis enables a predictive capacity" B^]

> as facts change, the rational person updates their view.

whereas you deceitfully and irrationally attempt to FALSIFY THE FACTS.

Everything you have posted since is worthless, by GIGO.

> Keep in mind also, "TrollPedia" is mostly satire,

you have mispelled 'sewerage'

You cannot mock what you did not understand.


> I limit myself

very wise, your feeble mental capacity does not allow more ambitious
endeavours.

As I have just documented.

> to what they've posted ON THIS NEWSGROUP,

A complete LIE. You have not responded to anything I have said,
and I have just demonstrated, using the traditional methods of
scholarship, that you do not even understand my thesis.

You have posted YOUR words, revealing YOUR beliefs, and it is no
surprise to anyone that they are utterly MOCKABLE!

You have just been mocked, and still don't realise what has been
your undoing.

When you carry that much BLUBBER, blimp boy, you deny your brain
of oxygen enriched blood, making it easy for me to leave you
bleeding on the LYING ATHEIST PROPAGANDA LIAR slaughterhouse floor.

> and don't start hunting around for online pictures (with the
> exception of Jahnu, who posted his famous picture himself).

As you did;

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

"More MASS than man"

"More MAMMARIES than man"

"More MALICE than man"

"More Moron than Man"


...has that transvestite prostitute who went missing in the
folds of your double chin been found yet?

Or did you have her for LUNCH! B^D


> We don't doc-drop,

You just fabricated a VISCIOUS, FALSE, ATHEIST SHITPILE AND
SLANDERFEST full of Malign fabrications and you want to claim
supremacy in a pissing comp over VIRTUE!?

There is nothing by or about me that is mocked on your website,
because you don't dare QUOTE ME, you just make shit UP!

What do i care if you MOCK **YOUR** fabricated straw man.

Mock yourself to death for all I care.. You have given me
enough material to ridicule you to oblivion. B^]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA

Mate, you have made your bed, and even with serious
re-inforcement, under the weight of your lies, (even greater than
your immense fat arse), which I will surgically eviscerate over
coming months, it will collapse utterly from the unbearable
burden of YOU LYING in it! B^D

> or post IP addresses of people there,

Have a little cry, spalbitch! Don't let your tears stain your
pretty little floral print frock. B^D

Once you started to LIE, just like every weak atheist Spokes-Orc
before you, you became FAIR game.. note i said FAIR..

For you to start weeping and whining this early in your chastisement
is deeply gratifying. and I have hardly begun yet. B^]

> we keep it to what they've revealed about themselves in the newsgroup.

TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT!

You have not used ANY quotes or material of mine, with the exception
of the B^D you have given us a complete fabrication, one hilarious
part of which I have exposed above, and already you are whinging
to the Invisible Umpire...

no one can save you. B^] Ask Steve Knight and Bukakke;

You remind me of the arrival of your Warlord, Fluffy on his
return after a stint in Bangcock as a butt plug:

He arrived with great fanfare, strutting, posturing..

# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Wow!! Been a long time!
# From: Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
# Message-ID: <Xns9CB4E545...@216.196.97.131>
# Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:31:13 -0500
#
# One fine day in alt.atheism, "Lady Lorelei" <lori_...@eac.net> wrote:
# >
# > I don't see too many people I know around here anymore. :(
# >
# > Lady Lorelei
#
# Warlord Steve still pokes his head in


http://arrogantass.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/head_up_ass.jpg

[Something atheists never provide.. EVIDENCE! B^]

Warlord Fluffy postured and blustered, much like you,
his horde of fawning atheist stooges simpered and cooed
around him as he swaggered into Dodge....

then i kicked his arse and he caved, running to Mummy; B^D

I simply posted his own words, verbatim on the alt.atheism FAQ which had
been revived after atheists lost interest for a few YEARS: B^D

# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>

# Newsgroups: alt.atheism

# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA

And the poor delicate widdle petal had a breakdown and
SOUGHT HELP FROM A HIGHER POWER! BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAAAAAA

# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>

# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Atheist Kooks: Sociopath shifts blame to others
# for their mistakes Re: A.A. Steve Knight checking in to Bellevue
# Message-ID: <1jivb5dparaegkqht...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:32:49 -0700
#
# FAQ pages for alt.atheism could land you in court.
#
# I reported you to Google abuse

#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA

"Waaaaahhh, Waaaaah Waaaaah" - Warlord (sic) Fluffy..

CRYING FOR HIS MOMMA !

Just like you, you fat arsed, flabby, weak, whining, mommy's boy;

> fasgnadh's never posted a picture of himself,

I don't want you wanking over my picture, you sick pervert!!!!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAA

Use the one you ahve of Chairman Mao, your fellow atheist porker!

> That's why fasgnadh's picture is a B^D.

That is the only honest thing on your slandering shitfest website,
you dog's rectum.

B^D

I'm very proud of that.. with just three characters I have captured
more humour than atheism has managed in a hundred years of terrorising
torturing and killing millions.

Everytime I look at it from now on i will be warmed by the laugher
at the DEFEAT OF THE ATHESIT TERROR STATES!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! B^D

All those people singing

"Free at last

Free at last

THANK GOD ALMIGHTY .. WE ARE FREE AT LAST!"

Seriously, you atheist sad sack, what could be more
appropriate for people freed from the yoke of atheist TYRANNY?

> Trollpedia is about poking fun at the arguments you make,

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA

I have already demonstrated, with your botched attempt to grasp
my central thesis, that you don't even KNOW my argument, let
alone understand.

You have mocked your OWN STRAWMAN, something I have NEVER SAID,
and never would, and you don't even understand why.

You really are a ridiculous fucktard! B^D

" every ... "atheist society" has been an

evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D

Test it. Do a google search for

"every so called �atheist society� has been an
evil abomination killing and oppressing it's citizens"

and see that it's Scat's thesis, NOT MINE!

> and so far, you
> appear to be backing up fasgnadh's incorrect arguments.

Nope, he may be agreeing with my real arguments, as posted,
but you don't even know what they are! B^D

YOUR attempt to FABRICATE weak strawmen is weak and dishonest.

>>>> who gives a shit?
>>>
>>> 1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the

>>> official atheist website refers to atheists "killing and

>>> opressing it's citizens".
>>>
>>> You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
>>> the poor spelling,

He's fixed that because it embarassis HIM, and left the LIES
he thinks embarass others, he's wrong, they are a BIGGER
humiliation for him than mere SPELLING! B^]

>>> just check the website to confirm THOSE
>>> ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
>>> the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.
>>>

>>> 2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it, cares
>>>
>>> 3. decent folk everywhere,care

>>>
>>> 4. Not atheists, clearly,
>>
>> absolutely!

--

---------

" every ... �atheist society� has been an

evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, quoted from the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states committed"
and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used state-sponsored
atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were
atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider: Scott Balneave..

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o

[sbalneav]

I've updated your page with links to your postings, to back up my claims. Keep
sending people there.

--
(` |) | The question is not, Can they reason?
_) |) | nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
a.a #2171 | -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) on animal rights

[raven1]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:54:40 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>

wrote:

>On 14-March-2013 3:16 AM, raven1 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:28:04 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14-March-2013 12:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:07:30 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Serious question here. Are you also "agnostic" about unicorns,
>>>> leprechauns, and goblins?
>>> no. where's the evidence for them?
>> The same place as the evidence for deities, apparently.
>
>wrong. unicorns are animals. none exist, and no skeletons or fossils of
>any have been found. the evidence is sadly lacking. and what is the
>evidence for leprechauns and goblins? you tell me. now contrast this to
>billions of ppl believing in God. do billions of ppl believe in
>unicorns, leprechauns, and goblins?

<facepalm>

Argumentum ad Numerum/ad Populum is a Logic 101 fallacy, as I noted
previously, and quite honestly, if I have to point out something so
basic that the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to
its truth or falsity, there's little point in continuing the
conversation. Have a nice life.

[raven1]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:25:07 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>
>Thanks you have answered much better than I can.

But Fasgnadh is insane, so that's not saying much in your favor.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 14-March-2013 3:16 AM, raven1 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:28:04 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14-March-2013 12:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:07:30 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Serious question here. Are you also "agnostic" about unicorns,
>>>> leprechauns, and goblins?
>>> no. where's the evidence for them?
>> The same place as the evidence for deities, apparently.
>
> wrong. unicorns are animals. none exist, and no skeletons or fossils of
> any have been found. the evidence is sadly lacking. and what is the
> evidence for leprechauns and goblins? you tell me. now contrast this to
> billions of ppl believing in God.

At one point, everyone on earth believed that the sun went around the earth.
At one point, everyone on earth believed that the earth was flat, and you'd
fall off the edge if you went too far.

Beliefs are beliefs, reality is reality. A falsehood is a falsehood even if
everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. You
discover what's true about the universe through Science.

> do billions of ppl believe in
> unicorns, leprechauns, and goblins? no.

But millions and millions of kids believe in Santa Claus, for a while at least.
That doesn't make that true, either.

You have to examine nature honestly. If things exist, they exist. Take the
Higgs Boson. We had to build a 10 billion dollar machine to find it, but we
found it, or, to be accurate, something that looks very much like it. But the
claims of theists are different. They go out of their way, usually, to define
God as something that *very specifically* cannot be detected. He's invisible.
Formless. Eternal. Outside this reality. But somehow he manages to affect
things in this universe, but trust us; it's undetectable when he does. And
*all* of this is simply asserted as being true, *BECAUSE* people have looked,
and found nothing. "Well, of course you found nothing!" They'll proclaim "You
found nothing BECAUSE he's invisibleformlesseternalblahblah". Even when you
try to find God by "their" methods (i.e. praying, looking within, meditation,
listening for the "still small voice", etc), and fail, the problem isn't that
God isn't there, oh no. It's that you don't REALLY believe, or you haven't
welcomed God into your heart enough, or any of a plethora of reasons. There's
always an excuse as to why their God can't be pinned down.

At some point, to continue to believe requires so much cognitive dissonance,
that you either have to buy into the above apologetics completely, or... you
become an atheist, and realize that sometimes, when things don't appear to be
there, it's because they're not there.

--
(` |) | A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth
_) |) | has a chance to get its pants on.
a.a #2171 | -- Winston Churchill

[Dakota]

If people had been forced under penalty of torture and death to
believe in unicorns instead of Jesus, there would be Unicornian
Churches in every city in the developed world.

[Dreamer In Colore]

The conversation is endless, Raven. And the eternal shaking of the
head at the complete lack of logic on the part of people espousing
faith is endless as well.

I think this is why you don't get groups of atheists coming together
to try and bolster their mutual lack of belief. It would be an
incredibly boring meeting if it were any longer than

"Ok, so we're all in agreement?"

Personally, I just like the old saying

"If one person hears voices, they call them insane. If many people
hear voices, they call it religion."

Or maybe the old joke that ends with "Don't make waves."

Cheers,
Dreamer

[felix_unger]

oh really? how many ppl believe that the sky appears blue? how many ppl
believe that the sky appears green?

> there's little point in continuing the
> conversation. Have a nice life.

and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[felix_unger]

have fun proving that

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

The sky is directly observable. More to the point, define "blue" and "green"
outside of what our brains detect certain wavelengths of light. Is the sky for
a colourblind person any less "blue" than yours?

But what you CAN do, is point an instrument at the sky, and say "We seem to be
observing an emission spectrum of this particular frequency". It's observable,
and repeatable.

We cannot point any instrument at "God", and make any measurements. Or at
least, we've been told we can't.

>> there's little point in continuing the
>> conversation. Have a nice life.
>
> and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
> believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.

No. There was irrefutable evidence for the fact that the sun went around the
earth; to this day we still say "the sun rises" or "at sunset". The sun, with
respect to the earth, is the thing sitting still. It is WE who move. At one
time, everyone *knew*, without a doubt, that the sun moved in the sky.

--
(` |) | The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
_) |) | dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
a.a #2171 | it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo

[felix_unger]

Orrrrrr shucks... :( I liked the little doggies pic..

[felix_unger]

but you're not. some atheists believe in strong/weak atheism, some
don't. some believe rocks and table and chairs are atheists, some don't.
some accept belief as part of atheism, some don't. etc, etc.,

>
> Personally, I just like the old saying
>
> "If one person hears voices, they call them insane. If many people
> hear voices, they call it religion."
>
> Or maybe the old joke that ends with "Don't make waves."
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[Irreverend Dave]

What empirical evidence is there for the existence of God?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

At one time the majority of people believed that the sun orbited the
earth. That didn't make it true.


--
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose Bierce

[felix_unger]

doesn't apply, since I'm not claiming that the billions of ppl who
believe in God are proof of God only that they're evidence for the
existence of God.

>
> At one time the majority of people believed that the sun orbited the
> earth. That didn't make it true.
>

"the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it"

do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?

[felix_unger]

that's irrelevant to my point. you can't escape the logic that if 99% of
ppl believe the sky appears blue, then that's evidence that it does
appear blue and not some other colour. if 50% of ppl believed the sky
appeared blue, and 50% believed it is green, then there would only be
evidence that it appears either blue or green, and so on. do billions of
ppl believe in a flying purple people eater? no, because there's no
reason to. conversely billions of ppl the world over believing in God
means there must be reason to, and so this belief is evidence for the
existence of God.

>

> But what you CAN do, is point an instrument at the sky, and say "We seem to be
> observing an emission spectrum of this particular frequency". It's observable,
> and repeatable.
>
> We cannot point any instrument at "God", and make any measurements. Or at
> least, we've been told we can't.
>
>>> there's little point in continuing the
>>> conversation. Have a nice life.
>> and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
>> believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.
> No. There was irrefutable evidence for the fact that the sun went around the
> earth; to this day we still say "the sun rises" or "at sunset". The sun, with
> respect to the earth, is the thing sitting still. It is WE who move. At one
> time, everyone *knew*, without a doubt, that the sun moved in the sky.

and there was ample evidence that the sun did move around the earth,
because ppl saw that it did! so how does that disprove my statement?
remember we are not talking about proof, only evidence. If the billions
of ppl who believe in the existence of God the world over, and the
countless books written, the countless ceremonies performed, and so on,
is not evidence for the existence of God, then what is it?

(I want to respond to your other posts too, but time doesn't permit at
present)

[sbalneav]

Were billions of people believing the sun went around the earth correct?
Might there be some other reason why people be invested in the belief of a God,
besides that God existing? Cultural norms? Family teaching? Fear of their
inevitable demise?

Besides, you're conflating something *observable* with something not
observable. Almost everyone "believes" the sky is blue because... all you need
to do is look up on a day with clear skies, and there it is. I'd argue people
don't BELIEVE the sky is blue, they KNOW the sky is blue, because they have
direct evidence for it. Even *then*, you can be wrong, as things do not always
appear as they really are; as in the case of the sun.

How many of those people have direct *evidence* of God, in the same way that
they have direct *evidence* of the sky being blue?

>> But what you CAN do, is point an instrument at the sky, and say "We seem to be
>> observing an emission spectrum of this particular frequency". It's observable,
>> and repeatable.
>>
>> We cannot point any instrument at "God", and make any measurements. Or at
>> least, we've been told we can't.
>>
>>>> there's little point in continuing the
>>>> conversation. Have a nice life.
>>> and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
>>> believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.
>> No. There was irrefutable evidence for the fact that the sun went around the
>> earth; to this day we still say "the sun rises" or "at sunset". The sun, with
>> respect to the earth, is the thing sitting still. It is WE who move. At one
>> time, everyone *knew*, without a doubt, that the sun moved in the sky.
>
> and there was ample evidence that the sun did move around the earth,
> because ppl saw that it did! so how does that disprove my statement?

Because the sun doesn't go around the earth. We know that now. People
"believe" there's a God. What's the missing peice of information they'd need
in order to go "oh, yeah, guess he's not there."? A scientific demonstration
of Abiogenesis? Successful test of M-Theory? I don't know, personally. I've
spoken with theists who'd say; "There's no proof you could show me that would
make me change my mind!". Well, fine, but now you have to abandon all claims
that your faith is somehow "rational" or "justified".

> remember we are not talking about proof, only evidence.

Right. So what evidence do those billions of people have?

> If the billions
> of ppl who believe in the existence of God the world over,

But here's the thing; different Gods. Hindus worship multiple Gods. Buddhists
don't have a "God". Christians believe in Jesus, but Jews and Muslims don't
believe he was the Son of God.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that "Billions of people the world over have a
wish that they don't have to die, and believe in something that will allow them
to continue on after death"?

. and the

> countless books written, the countless ceremonies performed, and so on,
> is not evidence for the existence of God, then what is it?

You're conflating cause and effect. Religion and belief are an effect. You're
assuming the CAUSE is "God". But that's not a justfied conclusion. It's a
non-sequitor.

--
(` |) | If you're rich you can buy books. If you're poor,
_) |) | you need a library.
a.a #2171 | -- John Kenneth Galbraith

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

No. They're evidence that the belief in a God is popular. Since belief is, by
definition, the acceptance of things WITHOUT evidence, you can't use belief AS
evidence for that thing.

>> At one time the majority of people believed that the sun orbited the
>> earth. That didn't make it true.
>>
>
> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it"
>
> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?

Yes. It is untrue.

--
(` |) | Not wanting something is as good as possessing it.
_) |) | -- Donald Horban
a.a #2171 |

[felix_unger]

no. irrelevant

> Might there be some other reason why people be invested in the belief of a God,
> besides that God existing?

yes. also irrelevant

> Cultural norms? Family teaching? Fear of their
> inevitable demise?
>
> Besides, you're conflating something *observable* with something not
> observable.

I realize that. it was just an example to support the contention that
the number of ppl believing something is relative to the likelihood of
it being true.

> Almost everyone "believes" the sky is blue because... all you need
> to do is look up on a day with clear skies, and there it is. I'd argue people
> don't BELIEVE the sky is blue, they KNOW the sky is blue,

and they'd be wrong because it isn't

> because they have
> direct evidence for it. Even *then*, you can be wrong, as things do not always
> appear as they really are; as in the case of the sun.
>
> How many of those people have direct *evidence* of God, in the same way that
> they have direct *evidence* of the sky being blue?

that's beside the point

>>> But what you CAN do, is point an instrument at the sky, and say "We seem to be
>>> observing an emission spectrum of this particular frequency". It's observable,
>>> and repeatable.
>>>
>>> We cannot point any instrument at "God", and make any measurements. Or at
>>> least, we've been told we can't.
>>>
>>>>> there's little point in continuing the
>>>>> conversation. Have a nice life.
>>>> and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
>>>> believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.
>>> No. There was irrefutable evidence for the fact that the sun went around the
>>> earth; to this day we still say "the sun rises" or "at sunset". The sun, with
>>> respect to the earth, is the thing sitting still. It is WE who move. At one
>>> time, everyone *knew*, without a doubt, that the sun moved in the sky.
>> and there was ample evidence that the sun did move around the earth,
>> because ppl saw that it did! so how does that disprove my statement?
> Because the sun doesn't go around the earth. We know that now.

but AT THE TIME there WAS evidence that the sun went around the earth.

> People
> "believe" there's a God. What's the missing peice of information they'd need
> in order to go "oh, yeah, guess he's not there."? A scientific demonstration
> of Abiogenesis? Successful test of M-Theory? I don't know, personally. I've
> spoken with theists who'd say; "There's no proof you could show me that would
> make me change my mind!". Well, fine, but now you have to abandon all claims
> that your faith is somehow "rational" or "justified".

I know. there can be reasons for faith, but faith cannot be
rationalized. that's why it's called faith, and that's why it's
dangerous, because claims can be made that must be accepted, and cannot
be disputed, which can lead to irrational behaviour, and psychological harm

>
>> remember we are not talking about proof, only evidence.
> Right. So what evidence do those billions of people have?

that's not the issue. the issue is that the billions of ppl who do
believe is evidence for the existence of God. It could be evidence for
those other reasons you mentioned, or instead. but on the surface of it,
It's just plain common sense to acknowledge that billions of ppl the
world over believing something is prima facie evidence for it . only ppl
who want to assert that God doesn't exist would want to deny that.

>
>> If the billions
>> of ppl who believe in the existence of God the world over,
> But here's the thing; different Gods. Hindus worship multiple Gods. Buddhists
> don't have a "God". Christians believe in Jesus, but Jews and Muslims don't
> believe he was the Son of God.

doesn't matter. it's still about some supernatural power

>
> Wouldn't it be fairer to say that "Billions of people the world over have a
> wish that they don't have to die, and believe in something that will allow them
> to continue on after death"?

then you're assuming their motivation. isn't it simpler just to just say
billions of ppl the world over believe in God? and that's evidence for
the existence of God? and not everyone who believes in God believes in
life after death, I think

>
> .. and the

>> countless books written, the countless ceremonies performed, and so on,
>> is not evidence for the existence of God, then what is it?
> You're conflating cause and effect. Religion and belief are an effect. You're
> assuming the CAUSE is "God". But that's not a justfied conclusion. It's a
> non-sequitor.
>

you're avoiding the question .. "if billions of ppl the world over
believing in the existence of God is not evidence for the existence of
God then what is it?"

[felix_unger]

it doesn't apply because it's about proof, not evidence

>> since I'm not claiming that the billions of ppl who
>> believe in God are proof of God only that they're evidence for the
>> existence of God.
> No. They're evidence that the belief in a God is popular. Since belief is, by
> definition, the acceptance of things WITHOUT evidence,

It's not. It's without proof.

> you can't use belief AS
> evidence for that thing.

of course you can.

>>> At one time the majority of people believed that the sun orbited the
>>> earth. That didn't make it true.
>>>
>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it"
>>
>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
> Yes. It is untrue.
>

it's not. where are the billions of ppl who believe in the flying purple
people eater?

[sbalneav]

You saying "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. It speaks directly to the point: A
large number of people believing in something doesn't mean that's evidence that
something is true, or real.

>> Might there be some other reason why people be invested in the belief of a God,
>> besides that God existing?
>
> yes. also irrelevant

Why irrelevant?

>> Cultural norms? Family teaching? Fear of their
>> inevitable demise?
>>
>> Besides, you're conflating something *observable* with something not
>> observable.
>
> I realize that. it was just an example to support the contention that
> the number of ppl believing something is relative to the likelihood of
> it being true.

Which is a false contention, as has been demonstrated.

>> Almost everyone "believes" the sky is blue because... all you need
>> to do is look up on a day with clear skies, and there it is. I'd argue people
>> don't BELIEVE the sky is blue, they KNOW the sky is blue,
>
> and they'd be wrong because it isn't

Correct. So they're not even right about *that*, are they? So why'd you bring
it up in the first place?

>> because they have
>> direct evidence for it. Even *then*, you can be wrong, as things do not always
>> appear as they really are; as in the case of the sun.
>>
>> How many of those people have direct *evidence* of God, in the same way that
>> they have direct *evidence* of the sky being blue?
>
> that's beside the point

Oh?

>>>> But what you CAN do, is point an instrument at the sky, and say "We seem to be
>>>> observing an emission spectrum of this particular frequency". It's observable,
>>>> and repeatable.
>>>>
>>>> We cannot point any instrument at "God", and make any measurements. Or at
>>>> least, we've been told we can't.
>>>>
>>>>>> there's little point in continuing the
>>>>>> conversation. Have a nice life.
>>>>> and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
>>>>> believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.
>>>> No. There was irrefutable evidence for the fact that the sun went around the
>>>> earth; to this day we still say "the sun rises" or "at sunset". The sun, with
>>>> respect to the earth, is the thing sitting still. It is WE who move. At one
>>>> time, everyone *knew*, without a doubt, that the sun moved in the sky.
>>> and there was ample evidence that the sun did move around the earth,
>>> because ppl saw that it did! so how does that disprove my statement?
>> Because the sun doesn't go around the earth. We know that now.
>
> but AT THE TIME there WAS evidence that the sun went around the earth.

The problem with reality is, sometimes, things aren't what they appear to be.
In exactly the same way that billions of people having "evidence" that the sun
goes around the earth, and this turning out to be incorrect, so is billions of
people believing in a God no real indication that the God actually exists.

>> People
>> "believe" there's a God. What's the missing peice of information they'd need
>> in order to go "oh, yeah, guess he's not there."? A scientific demonstration
>> of Abiogenesis? Successful test of M-Theory? I don't know, personally. I've
>> spoken with theists who'd say; "There's no proof you could show me that would
>> make me change my mind!". Well, fine, but now you have to abandon all claims
>> that your faith is somehow "rational" or "justified".
>
> I know. there can be reasons for faith, but faith cannot be
> rationalized. that's why it's called faith, and that's why it's
> dangerous, because claims can be made that must be accepted, and cannot
> be disputed, which can lead to irrational behaviour, and psychological harm

Which is why it's irrelevant as to how many people believe in something.
Reality is not determined by popularity contest.

>>> remember we are not talking about proof, only evidence.
>> Right. So what evidence do those billions of people have?
>
> that's not the issue. the issue is that the billions of ppl who do
> believe is evidence for the existence of God. It could be evidence for
> those other reasons you mentioned, or instead. but on the surface of it,
> It's just plain common sense to acknowledge that billions of ppl the
> world over believing something is prima facie evidence for it . only ppl
> who want to assert that God doesn't exist would want to deny that.

The universe does not, and does not need to, conform to "common sense",
whatever that is. Perhaps you could define for us what exactly you're terming
"common sense"?

For instance, would you agree that, things for which there are no tangible
evidence for the existance of, it makes common sense to not believe in them?
As an example, there's no evidence for fire-breathing dragons. No skeletons of
fire-breathing dragons have been found, damsels are not frequently found tied
to stakes and charbroiled, etc. Would you agree it's "common sense" to
conclude that believing in fire-breathing dragons isn't justified?

>>> If the billions
>>> of ppl who believe in the existence of God the world over,
>> But here's the thing; different Gods. Hindus worship multiple Gods. Buddhists
>> don't have a "God". Christians believe in Jesus, but Jews and Muslims don't
>> believe he was the Son of God.
>
>
> doesn't matter. it's still about some supernatural power
>>
>> Wouldn't it be fairer to say that "Billions of people the world over have a
>> wish that they don't have to die, and believe in something that will allow them
>> to continue on after death"?
>
> then you're assuming their motivation. isn't it simpler just to just say
> billions of ppl the world over believe in God? and that's evidence for
> the existence of God? and not everyone who believes in God believes in
> life after death, I think

No it's not, and here's why:

Belief is defined as accepting something as true WITHOUT evidence:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible
to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief."

You can't use something which believes in a thing, BY DEFINITION, without
evidence, as being EVIDENCE that thing exists.

>> .. and the
>>> countless books written, the countless ceremonies performed, and so on,
>>> is not evidence for the existence of God, then what is it?
>> You're conflating cause and effect. Religion and belief are an effect. You're
>> assuming the CAUSE is "God". But that's not a justfied conclusion. It's a
>> non-sequitor.
>>
>
> you're avoiding the question .. "if billions of ppl the world over
> believing in the existence of God is not evidence for the existence of
> God then what is it?"

That billions of people believe in something they have no evidence for, for
motives that vary from person to person.

--
(` |) | Hypermediocrity
_) |) | -- Fischerspooner "Emerge"
a.a #2171 |

[sbalneav]

Please give us your definition of "evidence". Specifically, what version of
"evidence" you would apply for testing the existence or non-existence of
things.

>>> since I'm not claiming that the billions of ppl who
>>> believe in God are proof of God only that they're evidence for the
>>> existence of God.
>> No. They're evidence that the belief in a God is popular. Since belief is, by
>> definition, the acceptance of things WITHOUT evidence,
>
> It's not. It's without proof.

That's fine, but we've already established that evidence can be
mis-interpreted. See: sun.

>> you can't use belief AS
>> evidence for that thing.
>
> of course you can.

On what grounds? Can you provide a cite for this assertion?

>>>> At one time the majority of people believed that the sun orbited the
>>>> earth. That didn't make it true.
>>>>
>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it"
>>>
>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>> Yes. It is untrue.
>>
>
> it's not. where are the billions of ppl who believe in the flying purple
> people eater?

Not many of those, but I *can* provide evidence for billions of people who
believe in some invisible, unknowable, timeless, formless deity, of which
there's *exactly* the same amount of evidence for the existance of, as the
flying purple people eater: None.

--
(` |) | Not what we have, but what we enjoy,
_) |) | constitutes our abundance.
a.a #2171 | -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE

[Dreamer In Colore]

>
>But millions and millions of kids believe in Santa Claus, for a while at least.
>That doesn't make that true, either.
>

WHOA! WHOA!!!!


What? Santa Claus doesn't exist?

You HEATHENOUS LYING MISERABLE SCUM!!!!

How can you possibly believe this without the eternal fires of the
elfin flames licking at your immortal soul?

Repent sinner....

(I have to confess, I was giggling when I wrote this)

Cheers,
Dreamer

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>But millions and millions of kids believe in Santa Claus, for a while at least.
>>That doesn't make that true, either.
>>
>
>
> WHOA! WHOA!!!!
>
>
> What? Santa Claus doesn't exist?
>
> You HEATHENOUS LYING MISERABLE SCUM!!!!

I know! And kids are FAR more justified in believing in Santa Claus than
adults are in God. God works in Mysterious Ways, he's a Still, Small Voice,
His Miracles To Perform, etc. But Santa Claus? The presents under the tree
are *right there*, with a tag saying "From: Santa" on 'em.

> How can you possibly believe this without the eternal fires of the
> elfin flames licking at your immortal soul?
>
> Repent sinner....
>
> (I have to confess, I was giggling when I wrote this)
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer

--
(` |) | Eating words has never given me indigestion.
_) |) | -- Winston Churchill
a.a #2171 |

[felix_unger]

On 17-March-2013 1:24 AM, sbalneav wrote:

> In alt.atheism Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> But millions and millions of kids believe in Santa Claus, for a while at least.
>>> That doesn't make that true, either.
>>>
>>
>> WHOA! WHOA!!!!
>>
>>
>> What? Santa Claus doesn't exist?
>>
>> You HEATHENOUS LYING MISERABLE SCUM!!!!
> I know! And kids are FAR more justified in believing in Santa Claus than
> adults are in God. God works in Mysterious Ways, he's a Still, Small Voice,
> His Miracles To Perform, etc. But Santa Claus? The presents under the tree
> are *right there*, with a tag saying "From: Santa" on 'em.

yes, it's evidence that Santa exists

>> How can you possibly believe this without the eternal fires of the
>> elfin flames licking at your immortal soul?
>>
>> Repent sinner....
>>
>> (I have to confess, I was giggling when I wrote this)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dreamer


--

[felix_unger]

It's irrelevant to the fact that billions of believers is evidence,
whether the belief is true or not

> It speaks directly to the point: A
> large number of people believing in something doesn't mean that's evidence that
> something is true, or real.
>
>>> Might there be some other reason why people be invested in the belief of a God,
>>> besides that God existing?
>> yes. also irrelevant
> Why irrelevant?

because it doesn't change the fact that one of the possibilities, the
primary one, is the God existing since that's the main focus of the belief

>
>>> Cultural norms? Family teaching? Fear of their
>>> inevitable demise?
>>>
>>> Besides, you're conflating something *observable* with something not
>>> observable.
>> I realize that. it was just an example to support the contention that
>> the number of ppl believing something is relative to the likelihood of
>> it being true.
> Which is a false contention, as has been demonstrated.

not. it's certainly not relative to the likelihood that it's false is
it. it'd be silly to claim that the more ppl believe something the more
likely it is to be false. 90% of the audience of a play say it was a
lousy performance. what are you going to do? believe it was terrific?!

>
>>> Almost everyone "believes" the sky is blue because... all you need
>>> to do is look up on a day with clear skies, and there it is. I'd argue people
>>> don't BELIEVE the sky is blue, they KNOW the sky is blue,
>> and they'd be wrong because it isn't
> Correct. So they're not even right about *that*, are they? So why'd you bring
> it up in the first place?

what up?

>
>>> because they have
>>> direct evidence for it. Even *then*, you can be wrong, as things do not always
>>> appear as they really are; as in the case of the sun.
>>>
>>> How many of those people have direct *evidence* of God, in the same way that
>>> they have direct *evidence* of the sky being blue?
>> that's beside the point
> Oh?

because my only contention is that billions of ppl believing in God is
evidence for the existence of God. I'm not saying that billions of ppl
are not wrong, or that they're proof that God exists, only rejecting the
atheist claim that there is NO evidence for God. There was a movie on tv
tonight about a bikie drug dealer who 'found God' and turned his life
around, and that's not an uncommon story. it's just silly to claim that
there's NO evidence for God, and it's only ppl who want to believe that
God doesn't exist who say that.

>
>>>>> But what you CAN do, is point an instrument at the sky, and say "We seem to be
>>>>> observing an emission spectrum of this particular frequency". It's observable,
>>>>> and repeatable.
>>>>>
>>>>> We cannot point any instrument at "God", and make any measurements. Or at
>>>>> least, we've been told we can't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> there's little point in continuing the
>>>>>>> conversation. Have a nice life.
>>>>>> and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
>>>>>> believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.
>>>>> No. There was irrefutable evidence for the fact that the sun went around the
>>>>> earth; to this day we still say "the sun rises" or "at sunset". The sun, with
>>>>> respect to the earth, is the thing sitting still. It is WE who move. At one
>>>>> time, everyone *knew*, without a doubt, that the sun moved in the sky.
>>>> and there was ample evidence that the sun did move around the earth,
>>>> because ppl saw that it did! so how does that disprove my statement?
>>> Because the sun doesn't go around the earth. We know that now.
>> but AT THE TIME there WAS evidence that the sun went around the earth.
> The problem with reality is, sometimes, things aren't what they appear to be.
> In exactly the same way that billions of people having "evidence" that the sun
> goes around the earth, and this turning out to be incorrect, so is billions of
> people believing in a God no real indication that the God actually exists.

It's not proof God exists, but it IS evidence that God may exist.
remember, we are talking about BILLIONS of ppl!.

>
>>> People
>>> "believe" there's a God. What's the missing peice of information they'd need
>>> in order to go "oh, yeah, guess he's not there."? A scientific demonstration
>>> of Abiogenesis? Successful test of M-Theory? I don't know, personally. I've
>>> spoken with theists who'd say; "There's no proof you could show me that would
>>> make me change my mind!". Well, fine, but now you have to abandon all claims
>>> that your faith is somehow "rational" or "justified".
>> I know. there can be reasons for faith, but faith cannot be
>> rationalized. that's why it's called faith, and that's why it's
>> dangerous, because claims can be made that must be accepted, and cannot
>> be disputed, which can lead to irrational behaviour, and psychological harm
> Which is why it's irrelevant as to how many people believe in something.
> Reality is not determined by popularity contest.

no, reality is determined by fact, and fact is determined by proof.
belief is only an indication of the possibility of fact.

>>>> remember we are not talking about proof, only evidence.
>>> Right. So what evidence do those billions of people have?
>> that's not the issue. the issue is that the billions of ppl who do
>> believe is evidence for the existence of God. It could be evidence for
>> those other reasons you mentioned, or instead. but on the surface of it,
>> It's just plain common sense to acknowledge that billions of ppl the
>> world over believing something is prima facie evidence for it . only ppl
>> who want to assert that God doesn't exist would want to deny that.
> The universe does not, and does not need to, conform to "common sense",
> whatever that is. Perhaps you could define for us what exactly you're terming
> "common sense"?

in a nutshell it's what atheists seem to lack. :) common sense is what
most ppl's natural instinct tells them is right. It's common sense not
to put your hand in a fire if you don't want to be burnt.

>
> For instance, would you agree that, things for which there are no tangible
> evidence for the existance of, it makes common sense to not believe in them?
> As an example, there's no evidence for fire-breathing dragons. No skeletons of
> fire-breathing dragons have been found, damsels are not frequently found tied
> to stakes and charbroiled, etc. Would you agree it's "common sense" to
> conclude that believing in fire-breathing dragons isn't justified?

well duh! didn't I say that right at the start of this discussion..

"wrong. unicorns are animals. none exist, and no skeletons or fossils of
any have been found. the evidence is sadly lacking. and what is the
evidence for leprechauns and goblins? you tell me. now contrast this to
billions of ppl believing in God. do billions of ppl believe in
unicorns, leprechauns, and goblins?"

and hasn't the crux of my argument been that the number of ppl believing
something relates to the possibility of it being true?

>
>>>> If the billions
>>>> of ppl who believe in the existence of God the world over,
>>> But here's the thing; different Gods. Hindus worship multiple Gods. Buddhists
>>> don't have a "God". Christians believe in Jesus, but Jews and Muslims don't
>>> believe he was the Son of God.
>>
>> doesn't matter. it's still about some supernatural power
>>> Wouldn't it be fairer to say that "Billions of people the world over have a
>>> wish that they don't have to die, and believe in something that will allow them
>>> to continue on after death"?
>> then you're assuming their motivation. isn't it simpler just to just say
>> billions of ppl the world over believe in God? and that's evidence for
>> the existence of God? and not everyone who believes in God believes in
>> life after death, I think
> No it's not, and here's why:
>
> Belief is defined as accepting something as true WITHOUT evidence:

nope.

be�lieve

1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of
something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing
so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

using your example of the sun; that was evidence supporting the belief
that the sun moved around the earth.

>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief
>
> "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible
> to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief."

here's the full quote..


be�lief

noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth
is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately

susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian

belief.


>
> You can't use something which believes in a thing, BY DEFINITION, without
> evidence, as being EVIDENCE that thing exists.

as we've both said now, ppl don't believe without reason!

>
>>> .. and the
>>>> countless books written, the countless ceremonies performed, and so on,
>>>> is not evidence for the existence of God, then what is it?
>>> You're conflating cause and effect. Religion and belief are an effect. You're
>>> assuming the CAUSE is "God". But that's not a justfied conclusion. It's a
>>> non-sequitor.
>>>
>> you're avoiding the question .. "if billions of ppl the world over
>> believing in the existence of God is not evidence for the existence of
>> God then what is it?"
> That billions of people believe in something they have no evidence for,

you don't KNOW that. you can't know what another person experiences

> for motives that vary from person to person.
>

I guess we could argue till the cows come home. it's obvious that you're
wanting to support your non-belief. I'm just arguing the common sense
position. billions of believers in God is evidence for God, whether the
beliefs are justified or not.


--
rgds,

Pete
-------

[felix_unger]

I have no problem with a dictionary definition


ev�i�dence

noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;
proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His
flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue
and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or
objects.

> Specifically, what version of
> "evidence" you would apply for testing the existence or non-existence of
> things.

evidence which leads to proof. ie. confirms existence

>
>>>> since I'm not claiming that the billions of ppl who
>>>> believe in God are proof of God only that they're evidence for the
>>>> existence of God.
>>> No. They're evidence that the belief in a God is popular. Since belief is, by
>>> definition, the acceptance of things WITHOUT evidence,
>> It's not. It's without proof.
> That's fine, but we've already established that evidence can be
> mis-interpreted. See: sun.
>
>>> you can't use belief AS
>>> evidence for that thing.
>> of course you can.
> On what grounds? Can you provide a cite for this assertion?

what about the example of the play that I gave? 90% of the audience say
it was lousy. that's pretty good evidence that it was.

>
>>>>> At one time the majority of people believed that the sun orbited the
>>>>> earth. That didn't make it true.
>>>>>
>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it"
>>>>
>>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>> Yes. It is untrue.
>>>
>> it's not. where are the billions of ppl who believe in the flying purple
>> people eater?
> Not many of those, but I *can* provide evidence for billions of people who
> believe in some invisible, unknowable, timeless, formless deity, of which
> there's *exactly* the same amount of evidence for the existance of, as the
> flying purple people eater: None.

nup. that's just what you want to believe because you're an atheist.
billions of ppl believe in God. maybe one or two believe in a FPPE.
which is more likely to be true?

--
rgds,

Pete
-------

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <rhr8k8td0vtea6jm4...@4ax.com>,

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >

As was I, when reading it.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ki1val$vdp$1...@dont-email.me>,

sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org> wrote:

> In alt.atheism Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>But millions and millions of kids believe in Santa Claus, for a while at
> >>least.
> >>That doesn't make that true, either.
> >>
> >
> >
> > WHOA! WHOA!!!!
> >
> >
> > What? Santa Claus doesn't exist?
> >
> > You HEATHENOUS LYING MISERABLE SCUM!!!!
>
> I know! And kids are FAR more justified in believing in Santa Claus than
> adults are in God. God works in Mysterious Ways, he's a Still, Small Voice,
> His Miracles To Perform, etc. But Santa Claus? The presents under the tree
> are *right there*, with a tag saying "From: Santa" on 'em.

Not to mention the evidence that he ate the cookies and drank the milk.

> > How can you possibly believe this without the eternal fires of the
> > elfin flames licking at your immortal soul?
> >
> > Repent sinner....
> >
> > (I have to confess, I was giggling when I wrote this)

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aqkb46...@mid.individual.net>,

> ev搏搞ence

How so?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aqkb15...@mid.individual.net>,

Yeah, there may be a reason for believing in a god, but it's NEVER a
good one.

> >>> .. and the
> >>>> countless books written, the countless ceremonies performed, and so on,
> >>>> is not evidence for the existence of God, then what is it?
> >>> You're conflating cause and effect. Religion and belief are an effect.
> >>> You're
> >>> assuming the CAUSE is "God". But that's not a justfied conclusion. It's
> >>> a
> >>> non-sequitor.
> >>>
> >> you're avoiding the question .. "if billions of ppl the world over
> >> believing in the existence of God is not evidence for the existence of
> >> God then what is it?"
> > That billions of people believe in something they have no evidence for,
>
> you don't KNOW that. you can't know what another person experiences
>
> > for motives that vary from person to person.
> >
>
> I guess we could argue till the cows come home. it's obvious that you're
> wanting to support your non-belief. I'm just arguing the common sense
> position. billions of believers in God is evidence for God, whether the
> beliefs are justified or not.

Completely and totally irrelevant. And nonsensical.

More people believe in Allah than do in your god. I guess that makes
Allah more real that your god.

[felix_unger]

to what?

> And nonsensical.

not

>
> More people believe in Allah than do in your god. I guess that makes
> Allah more real that your god.
>

when you have something to say about what I'm actually saying, get back
to me.

[sbalneav]

It's evidence that people believe. It's not evidence that the belief is true.

>> It speaks directly to the point: A
>> large number of people believing in something doesn't mean that's evidence that
>> something is true, or real.
>>
>>>> Might there be some other reason why people be invested in the belief of a God,
>>>> besides that God existing?
>>> yes. also irrelevant
>> Why irrelevant?
>
> because it doesn't change the fact that one of the possibilities, the
> primary one, is the God existing since that's the main focus of the belief
>
>>
>>>> Cultural norms? Family teaching? Fear of their
>>>> inevitable demise?
>>>>
>>>> Besides, you're conflating something *observable* with something not
>>>> observable.
>>> I realize that. it was just an example to support the contention that
>>> the number of ppl believing something is relative to the likelihood of
>>> it being true.
>> Which is a false contention, as has been demonstrated.
>
> not. it's certainly not relative to the likelihood that it's false is
> it. it'd be silly to claim that the more ppl believe something the more
> likely it is to be false. 90% of the audience of a play say it was a
> lousy performance. what are you going to do? believe it was terrific?!

Conflating personal preference with reality claims. Not the same.

>>>> Almost everyone "believes" the sky is blue because... all you need
>>>> to do is look up on a day with clear skies, and there it is. I'd argue people
>>>> don't BELIEVE the sky is blue, they KNOW the sky is blue,
>>> and they'd be wrong because it isn't
>> Correct. So they're not even right about *that*, are they? So why'd you bring
>> it up in the first place?
>
> what up?

<snip>

I think we're done.

--
(` |) | Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
_) |) | None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.
a.a #2171 | -- Bob Dylan, "All along the watchtower"

[felix_unger]

and I've never claimed that it's evidence the belief is true. how many
times do you need to be told?

snip and run? just as fasgnadh says you do. the fact that billons of ppl
believe in God is evidence for God, no matter how much you wish to deny
it. it seems, just like religious believers, you simply believe what you
want to believe.


(time to update my website)

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Christianity is not about truth, it's about lifestyle. and so is atheism it seems"

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aqke5h...@mid.individual.net>,

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 17-March-2013 10:18 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
> > In article <aqkb15...@mid.individual.net>,
> > felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I guess we could argue till the cows come home. it's obvious that you're
> >> wanting to support your non-belief. I'm just arguing the common sense
> >> position. billions of believers in God is evidence for God, whether the
> >> beliefs are justified or not.
> > Completely and totally irrelevant.
>
> to what?
>
> > And nonsensical.
>
> not
>
> >
> > More people believe in Allah than do in your god. I guess that makes
> > Allah more real that your god.
> >
>
> when you have something to say about what I'm actually saying, get back
> to me.

If you think what I said has nothing to do with what you're saying, then
you've got a serious problem.

You claim, right above there, that the number of believers is proof of
the existence of god. I pointed out that by that logic a different god
worshipped by more people is more real.

(Of course, the Judeo-Christian god and Allah are the same god, though
many Christians choose to deny that.)

[felix_unger]

On 17-March-2013 2:21 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <aqke5h...@mid.individual.net>,
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17-March-2013 10:18 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>
>>> In article <aqkb15...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I guess we could argue till the cows come home. it's obvious that you're
>>>> wanting to support your non-belief. I'm just arguing the common sense
>>>> position. billions of believers in God is evidence for God, whether the
>>>> beliefs are justified or not.
>>>

>>> More people believe in Allah than do in your god. I guess that makes
>>> Allah more real that your god.
>>>
>> when you have something to say about what I'm actually saying, get back
>> to me.
> If you think what I said has nothing to do with what you're saying, then
> you've got a serious problem.

It's you who create a problem thru not having read the thread, making
assumptions, and jumping in with inappropriate comment.

>
> You claim, right above there, that the number of believers is proof of
> the existence of god.

If you'd bothered to follow the discussion you'd know that I have never
claimed that ppl believing in God is proof of Gods existence. My only
claim is that billions of ppl believing in God is EVIDENCE for God's
existence, and I have argued that ad nauseaum

> I pointed out that by that logic a different god
> worshipped by more people is more real.

but you said it was 'my god'. apart from that you are almost correct..
"a different god worshipped by more people is more likely to be real"

> (Of course, the Judeo-Christian god and Allah are the same god, though
> many Christians choose to deny that.)

correct

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"From all the evidence, it appears that there was no single historical person upon whom the Christian religion was founded, and that "Jesus Christ" is a compilation of legends, heroes, gods and godmen" - http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

[sbalneav]

You've stated it's "evidence that God exists". Have you not? If

No, not at all, but the discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

> the fact that billons of ppl
> believe in God is evidence for God, no matter how much you wish to deny
> it.

And belief of something's existance, no matter how many people believe it,
isn't evidence for it's existence. Reality simply is. If God exists, he
exists *even if* nobody believes in him. If God doesn't exist, he doesn't
exist *even if* everyone believes in him. Existance claims are not decided by
popularity vote.

Nobody, or hardly anybody, believes in Quetzalcoatl any more. Is that evidence
Quetzalcoatl *doesn't* exist?

You can't say belief is evidence for anything, because people can be wrong.
You have to look at REAL evidence, repeatable evidence, to determine if things
exist or not.

There are LOTS of things that WOULD be considered evidence for a God:

1) Finding archaological evidence for, say, one of the miracles listed in the
Bible. Say, if we'd found evidence for the Noahic flood.
2) Intercessionary prayer were shown to be effective, in some way that would
distinguish it from random chance.
3) If a "created" creature were found; i.e. we were to find the creationists
fantasy "crockoduck".
4) If, around places of purported "miracles" there was some sort of recordable
field or energy emission.

etc. THESE would be evidence; they're observable, measurable, quantifiable,
studyable. We don't see these. All we've got is billions of people who
"believe", and not all in the same thing. They DO have one other thing in
common, though. A strong survival instinct.

People wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

> it seems, just like religious believers, you simply believe what you
> want to believe.

I don't believe in things without evidence. It makes no sense to.

> (time to update my website)

--

(` |) | Grief can take care of itself; but to get the full value
_) |) | of a joy you must have somebody to divide it with.
a.a #2171 | -- Mark Twain

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aqku0a...@mid.individual.net>,

Okay. I see we had a communications glitch on this point. I was wrong in
my comprehension of what you said. Sorry.

[felix_unger]

fair enough. if we have put all our arguments, and neither can convince
the other that their view is correct, then we simply have agree to
disagree. (an perhaps find some other point of disagreement to debate)

>
>> the fact that billons of ppl
>> believe in God is evidence for God, no matter how much you wish to deny
>> it.
> And belief of something's existance, no matter how many people believe it,
> isn't evidence for it's existence. Reality simply is. If God exists, he
> exists *even if* nobody believes in him. If God doesn't exist, he doesn't
> exist *even if* everyone believes in him. Existance claims are not decided by
> popularity vote.

I've never said belief creates reality. the billions of ppl who believe
in God are evidence for Gods existence, simply because they EXIST. if
not, what are they evidence for.. a flying pork chop??

evidence

noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;
proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His
flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue
and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or
objects.

verb (used with object)
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his
approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with
incriminating letters.

please note, 1. and 2.

also, note 4 where a promise is evidence. evidence does not have to be
anything tangible.

>
> Nobody, or hardly anybody, believes in Quetzalcoatl any more. Is that evidence
> Quetzalcoatl *doesn't* exist?
>
> You can't say belief is evidence for anything, because people can be wrong.

but I'm not talking about truth of the belief(s) or facts

> You have to look at REAL evidence, repeatable evidence, to determine if things
> exist or not.
>
> There are LOTS of things that WOULD be considered evidence for a God:
>
> 1) Finding archaological evidence for, say, one of the miracles listed in the
> Bible. Say, if we'd found evidence for the Noahic flood.
> 2) Intercessionary prayer were shown to be effective, in some way that would
> distinguish it from random chance.
> 3) If a "created" creature were found; i.e. we were to find the creationists
> fantasy "crockoduck".
> 4) If, around places of purported "miracles" there was some sort of recordable
> field or energy emission.
>
> etc. THESE would be evidence; they're observable, measurable, quantifiable,
> studyable. We don't see these. All we've got is billions of people who
> "believe", and not all in the same thing. They DO have one other thing in
> common, though. A strong survival instinct.
>
> People wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

have I ever said so? no

>
>> it seems, just like religious believers, you simply believe what you
>> want to believe.
> I don't believe in things without evidence. It makes no sense to.

you believe God doesn't exist, and you believe that billions of ppl have
no good reason to believe God exists, which makes you, in my opinion,
appear somewhat vain and arrogant for thinking that you know better than
billions of others.



--
rgds,

Pete
-------
Question - How do you remove liberty from free people?
Answer - Slowly

[felix_unger]

ok. thanks for that. just as a matter of interest, what is your view
about whether billions of believers are evidence (not proof) for (not
of) God's existence?

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aqlbtl...@mid.individual.net>,

Absolutely not. All it is evidence of is that billions of believers
believe god exists.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aqlbk6...@mid.individual.net>,

How does it make me arrogant?

But if refusing to believe in anything without evidence makes me
arrogant, I'll cop to it.

[casey]

On Mar 17, 3:08 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alt-atheism.org> wrote:
> [...]

>
> There are LOTS of things that WOULD be considered evidence for a God:

If you were God how would you prove you existed?

[walksalone]

casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:85531c6d-c26c-4d50-b9bd-
1f1718...@m3g2000pba.googlegroups.com:

Obviously not Scott, but here are some easy ones that benifit people I do
not even know.

Missing limbs being regenerated, with the gene still turned off. As in
human limbs.
No more famines.
No more parasites that destroy lives of children.
No more excess children being born.

Certainly any god that demands humanity worship it [well, any one of the
three revealed gods of the desesrt anyway] can do those minor miricales?
Can't it?

walksalone who has to admit, some god claims make sense. Saddly, like
the revealed gods of the desert, there is no evidence for them.
Gaia would be nice, & we can always see her manisfestation. & the earth
is a lively placae, well other than the core that is. Slow, but lively.
When it gets quick, things get interesting.

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and
reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder
and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)

[felix_unger]

It wasn't addressed to you, but quite simply, by saying that you know
better. If ppl tell me they have spiritual experiences, who am I to say
they don't? If you tell me something about yourself that I cannot
possibly know is true or not, should I take your word for it, or just
say you don't know what you're talking about? Personally I don't believe
anything that cannot be established as fact, eg heaven/hell, but I'm not
willing to say that billions of ppl are wrong.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

[sbalneav]

The problem with your definition is: existence is an english word. English
words are flexible. A dictionary covers all meanings of a word.

But existence, in a reality sense, is more restricted. It's a binary
proposition: things exist, or they don't. If they exist, there should be
evidence they exist. Some way to test existence from non-existance. If we're
talking about an apple, I can weigh it, or count it. There's an exclusion
principle: where the apple is, nothing else will be in it's place.

Theists posit a God which directly affects *this* reality. It moves around
baryonic matter. It changes brain states, which requires chemical and
electrical manipulation. It should be *detectable*. It hasn't been, so far.

The only one's I'll allow off the hook are deists: a deist posits a God who, in
Hawkings words, "lit the blue touchpaper that kicked off the universe" (That
may not be an exact quote, but it's close) and has kept his fingers off
creation ever since; the universe he or she started simply runs along on the
rules he or she designed, with no subsequent intervention.

The deist has a much easier time of things; we don't know what happened
"before" the big bang; science doesn't have an answer at this point, so it's
still a possibility that a God started the ball rolling. And, their contention
that there's been no subsequent intervention is consistent with what we
observe: a universe that, like Sagan says, is neither Friendly nor Hostile
towards us; merely indifferent. That's what I was, for years; a deist.
Eventually I realized that there was no point in believing something which was
indistinguishable from nothing existed. It was better to simply take the
position that there was no evidence for a God (the "indifferent universe"), and
that we simply *didn't know* what started the ball rolling. The issue is,
there aren't billions of DEISTS on the planet. There's billions of THEISTS.
THEY believe in a God that DOES affect this universe. If this God is affecting
this universe, there has to be tangible, observable, quantifiable, PHYSICAL
evidence of this: since he's affecting PHYSICAL things.

There's a third problem with your thesis. The problems we've hit on so far
are:

1) Physical things are not defined by people's belief in them (Existence
precedes essence)
2) People's beliefs can be wrong (sun goes around the earth)

The third is this:

If belief is evidence for a thing existing, then non-belief is evidence for a
thing NOT existing.

There was a time, on this planet, 1500 BC, when NO ONE believed in YHWH.
Therefore, that was evidence he DIDN'T exist. Both the theist, and deist,
posit he's been around since the beginning. This leads to a direct
contradiction.

People's beliefs, or lack thereof do NOT decide reality. You determine what
exists IN REALITY by examining it.

>> Nobody, or hardly anybody, believes in Quetzalcoatl any more. Is that evidence
>> Quetzalcoatl *doesn't* exist?
>>
>> You can't say belief is evidence for anything, because people can be wrong.
>
> but I'm not talking about truth of the belief(s) or facts

Yes you are. Saying "Billions of people believing in God is evidence that God
exists" is a truth claim *with regards to the existance of God*.

>> You have to look at REAL evidence, repeatable evidence, to determine if things
>> exist or not.
>>
>> There are LOTS of things that WOULD be considered evidence for a God:
>>
>> 1) Finding archaological evidence for, say, one of the miracles listed in the
>> Bible. Say, if we'd found evidence for the Noahic flood.
>> 2) Intercessionary prayer were shown to be effective, in some way that would
>> distinguish it from random chance.
>> 3) If a "created" creature were found; i.e. we were to find the creationists
>> fantasy "crockoduck".
>> 4) If, around places of purported "miracles" there was some sort of recordable
>> field or energy emission.
>>
>> etc. THESE would be evidence; they're observable, measurable, quantifiable,
>> studyable. We don't see these. All we've got is billions of people who
>> "believe", and not all in the same thing. They DO have one other thing in
>> common, though. A strong survival instinct.
>>
>> People wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.
>
> have I ever said so? no

So then why argue that belief is evidence?

>>> it seems, just like religious believers, you simply believe what you
>>> want to believe.
>> I don't believe in things without evidence. It makes no sense to.
>
> you believe God doesn't exist,

No, I don't. You misstate my position.

I *don't* believe a God exists. I *don't* believe the claims of theists. If a
God exists, I have no idea, since I can't prove a negative. However, the
universe conducts itself in a manner that would suggest that there is no God,
so rationally, I conclude that a universe that doesn't APPEAR to have a God,
probably doesn't have one. I certainly allow for the possibility that I may be
incorrect, but I'm going to need to see some evidence in order to re-evaluate
my position.

> and you believe that billions of ppl have
> no good reason to believe God exists,

Again, you're putting words in my mouth: where have I said they have *no* good
reason? I think they have a VERY good reason; they're scared of dying.
There's a thing out there called "religion" that tells them you don't HAVE to
die, utterly, if you follow what they say. Having a survival instinct, the
people therefore believe what appears to be in their own rational self interest.

> which makes you, in my opinion,
> appear somewhat vain and arrogant for thinking that you know better than
> billions of others.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I think at this point, we'll draw it to a close. I think I've stated my case
clearly enough; that billions of people believing in a deity is only evidence
of billions of people believing. It does nothing to establish a truth claim
regarding the actual existance of the deity. If you don't accept my reasoning,
then we'll have to conclude that you and I simply have different views on what
constitutes evidence.

--
(` |) | Knowledge: noun. The small part of ignorance that we
_) |) | arrange and classify.
a.a #2171 | -- Ambrose Bierce. "The Devil's Dictionary"

[sbalneav]

In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 17-March-2013 7:16 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>> In article <aqlbk6...@mid.individual.net>,
>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> you believe God doesn't exist, and you believe that billions of ppl have
>>> no good reason to believe God exists, which makes you, in my opinion,
>>> appear somewhat vain and arrogant for thinking that you know better than
>>> billions of others.
>> How does it make me arrogant?
>>
>> But if refusing to believe in anything without evidence makes me
>> arrogant, I'll cop to it.
>>
>
> It wasn't addressed to you, but quite simply, by saying that you know
> better.

I don't think either one of us have claimed knowledge. We've simply pointed
out that what you're calling evidence, isn't, and for sound reasons. I,
certainly don't claim to *know* a God doesn't exist, or that I'm smarter or
better than theists.

I just think they're wrong on this one issue. I have reasons for thinking so,
and I state them.

> If ppl tell me they have spiritual experiences, who am I to say
> they don't?

Again, someone who has a religious experience has access to a personal
experience I don't. They may well be justified in their belief. However, they
could have also imagined it. I have no way of determining that. So, someone's
subjective religious experience can't be used by me as evidence.

--
(` |) | You have succeeded in life when all you really want
_) |) | is only what you really need.
a.a #2171 | -- Vernon Howard

[sbalneav]

In alt.agnosticism casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Where to begin? Here's one:

Restore Atmospheric CO2 levels to middle ages levels, then appear in the sky
simulaneously to everyone on earth, tell them I've saved their bacon from the
impending environmental disaster, and advise that they should STOP BURNING
FOSSIL FUELS.

It's verifiable. It's measurable. There'd be no way to explain the sudden
dissapearence of millions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere like that.

--
(` |) | You do ill if you praise, but worse if you censure,
_) |) | what you do not understand.
a.a #2171 | -- Leonardo da Vinci

[felix_unger]

the only way anyone would ignore the testimony of billions of ppl, and
suggest they all could have imagined their experiences, is because they
want to, I would suggest.

[fasgnadh]

On 15/03/2013 12:59 AM, sbalneav wrote:
> In alt.atheism fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Scat Borg-knave fabricated a strawman and mocked his OWN creation: B^D

>>> In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

>>>> On 13-March-2013 4:05 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>>>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>>>>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
>>>>> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
>>>>> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> " every ..."atheist society" has been an
>>>>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>>>>
>>>>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]
>>>>
>>>
>>> why you seem to be backing up fasgnadh's
>>> demonstrably wrong thesis about "atheist societies".
>>
>>
>> I don't have a thesis about 'atheist societies', Lardarse, YOU DO: B^]
>>
>> " every ... "atheist society" has been an
>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>
>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D
>
> I've updated your page with links to your postings,

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAA

All that shows is ME **QUOTING** you exactly as I have done above! B^D

So, you concede that those are YOUR words and you are now trying, weakly
to suggest that by QUOTING YOU *AFTER* you said that, you think
you are reporting on me, when it's exactly the opposite, you lying
atheist propaganda tool! B^]

None of those links show ME referring to 'atheist societies as an evil
abomination', they just show me QUOTING YOU saying

" every ... "atheist society" has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D

I'm happy to post evidence of you describing the evil
abomination, killing and opressing of it's citizens YOU
CLAIM was carried out by atheist societies

> to back up my claims.

But they DON'T back up your claims, as any rational reader can see,

You have no proof for your claim that, and I quote YOUR WORDS:
(something you cannot do to back up your LIES about me ;-)

" every ... "atheist society" has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D

> Keep sending people there.

No need, everyone can see you are a troll who simply LIES and when
challanged, cannot produce any evidence for your claims whatsoever.

Game, Set, Match.

I have not said every atheist societies has been an
evil abomination, you did. B^]

But where is your EVIDENCE, for your claim about atheist societies
or your lie about me claiming it!?




>>> I posted on this in the other thread.
>>
>> So you just lied when you claimed it's MY thesis, it's not, it's YOURS!
>>
>> Did you falsely attribute it to me in that other thread, as you do on
>> alt.atheism.Borg?
>>
>> I have not argued that, that is YOUR argument, many people will agree
>> with you, I can't, because your propaganda lie is FALSE and merely shows:
>>
>> 1. that you 'mock' what you DO NOT UNDERSTAND
>>
>> 2. that you FABRICATE lies and try to attribute them to others.
>>
>> 3. that you are thus a gutless coward who cannot take ownership and
>> responsibly for your own utter nonsense malign slanders and
>> cowardice.
>>
>> 4. you are an idiot. B^]
>>
>> Challenge those facts and I checkmate in One.

You haven't challenged the evidence I have presented..

One more chance to show if you can back up your unproven beliefs,
your FALSE representations, slander and LIES:


YOU MADE THE UNPROVEN CLAIM:

" every ... "atheist society" has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D

You haven't provided ANY evidence for YOUR claim!
It's just another atheist lie.

Then you tried to FALSELY ATTRIBUTE that quote to me, on your Atheist
TROLL website to be known henceforth as alt.atheism.troll

But you can't produce a single quote by me saying that, the ONLY
EVIDENCE is what *I* have presented, showing those words are YOURS!

I have never said that.

Of course, because you and ALL THE ATHEISTS WHO SUPPORT YOUR SLANDER
AND LIES, are TROLLS, you will not make any correction or admit that you
LIED about me.

Triggering a new hypothesis, based on ALL the available EVIDENCE:

The atheists in alt.atheism are all dishonest and dishonourable,
incapable of logic, reason or acting upon EVIDENCE.

You are proven liars and trolls


>> "Correct rational analysis enables a predictive capacity" B^]
>>
>>> as facts change, the rational person updates their view.
>>
>> whereas you deceitfully and irrationally attempt to FALSIFY THE FACTS.
>>
>> Everything you have posted since is worthless, by GIGO.
>>
>>
>>> Keep in mind also, "TrollPedia" is mostly satire,
>>
>> you have mispelled 'sewerage'
>>
>> You cannot mock what you did not understand.
>>
>>
>>> I limit myself
>>
>> very wise, your feeble mental capacity does not allow more ambitious
>> endeavours.
>>
>> As I have just documented.
>>
>> > to what they've posted ON THIS NEWSGROUP,
>>
>> A complete LIE. You have not responded to anything I have said,
>> and I have just demonstrated, using the traditional methods of
>> scholarship, that you do not even understand my thesis.
>>
>> You have posted YOUR words, revealing YOUR beliefs, and it is no
>> surprise to anyone that they are utterly MOCKABLE!
>>
>> You have just been mocked, and still don't realise what has been
>> your undoing.
>>
>> When you carry that much BLUBBER, blimp boy, you deny your brain
>> of oxygen enriched blood, making it easy for me to leave you
>> bleeding on the LYING ATHEIST PROPAGANDA LIAR slaughterhouse floor.
>>
>>
>>> and don't start hunting around for online pictures (with the
>>> exception of Jahnu, who posted his famous picture himself).
>>
>> As you did;
>>
>> https://twitter.com/sbalneav
>>
>> "More MASS than man"
>>
>> "More MAMMARIES than man"
>>
>> "More MALICE than man"
>>
>> "More Moron than Man"
>>
>>
>> ...has that transvestite prostitute who went missing in the
>> folds of your double chin been found yet?
>>
>> Or did you have her for LUNCH! B^D
>>
>>
>>> We don't doc-drop,
>>
>> You just fabricated a VISCIOUS, FALSE, ATHEIST SHITPILE AND
>> SLANDERFEST full of Malign fabrications and you want to claim
>> supremacy in a pissing comp over VIRTUE!?
>>
>> There is nothing by or about me that is mocked on your website,
>> because you don't dare QUOTE ME, you just make shit UP!
>>
>> What do i care if you MOCK **YOUR** fabricated straw man.
>>
>> Mock yourself to death for all I care.. You have given me
>> enough material to ridicule you to oblivion. B^]
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA
>>
>> Mate, you have made your bed, and even with serious
>> re-inforcement, under the weight of your lies, (even greater than
>> your immense fat arse), which I will surgically eviscerate over
>> coming months, it will collapse utterly from the unbearable
>> burden of YOU LYING in it! B^D
>>
>>
>>> or post IP addresses of people there,
>>
>> Have a little cry, spalbitch! Don't let your tears stain your
>> pretty little floral print frock. B^D
>>
>> Once you started to LIE, just like every weak atheist Spokes-Orc
>> before you, you became FAIR game.. note i said FAIR..
>>
>> For you to start weeping and whining this early in your chastisement
>> is deeply gratifying. and I have hardly begun yet. B^]
>>
>> > we keep it to what they've revealed about themselves in the newsgroup.
>>
>> TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT!
>>
>> You have not used ANY quotes or material of mine, with the exception
>> of the B^D you have given us a complete fabrication, one hilarious
>> part of which I have exposed above, and already you are whinging
>> to the Invisible Umpire...
>>
>> no one can save you. B^] Ask Steve Knight and Bukakke;
>>
>> You remind me of the arrival of your Warlord, Fluffy on his
>> return after a stint in Bangcock as a butt plug:
>>
>> He arrived with great fanfare, strutting, posturing..
>>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism
>> # Subject: Re: Wow!! Been a long time!
>> # From: Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
>> # Message-ID: <Xns9CB4E545...@216.196.97.131>
>> # Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:31:13 -0500
>> #
>> # One fine day in alt.atheism, "Lady Lorelei" <lori_...@eac.net> wrote:
>> # >
>> # > I don't see too many people I know around here anymore. :(
>> # >
>> # > Lady Lorelei
>> #
>> # Warlord Steve still pokes his head in
>>
>>
>> http://arrogantass.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/head_up_ass.jpg
>>
>> [Something atheists never provide.. EVIDENCE! B^]
>>
>> Warlord Fluffy postured and blustered, much like you,
>> his horde of fawning atheist stooges simpered and cooed
>> around him as he swaggered into Dodge....
>>
>> then i kicked his arse and he caved, running to Mummy; B^D
>>
>> I simply posted his own words, verbatim on the alt.atheism FAQ which had
>> been revived after atheists lost interest for a few YEARS: B^D
>>
>> # From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism
>> # Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
>> # Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
>> # Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
>> #
>> # We kill theists and shit down their throats
>> #
>> # Warlord Steve
>> # BAAWA
>>
>> And the poor delicate widdle petal had a breakdown and
>> SOUGHT HELP FROM A HIGHER POWER! BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAAAAAA
>>
>> # From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism
>> # Subject: Re: Atheist Kooks: Sociopath shifts blame to others
>> # for their mistakes Re: A.A. Steve Knight checking in to Bellevue
>> # Message-ID: <1jivb5dparaegkqht...@4ax.com>
>> # Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:32:49 -0700
>> #
>> # FAQ pages for alt.atheism could land you in court.
>> #
>> # I reported you to Google abuse
>> #
>> # Warlord Steve
>> # BAAWA
>>
>> "Waaaaahhh, Waaaaah Waaaaah" - Warlord (sic) Fluffy..
>>
>> CRYING FOR HIS MOMMA !
>>
>> Just like you, you fat arsed, flabby, weak, whining, mommy's boy;
>>
>>
>>> fasgnadh's never posted a picture of himself,
>>
>>
>> I don't want you wanking over my picture, you sick pervert!!!!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAA
>>
>> Use the one you ahve of Chairman Mao, your fellow atheist porker!
>>
>>> That's why fasgnadh's picture is a B^D.
>>
>> That is the only honest thing on your slandering shitfest website,
>> you dog's rectum.
>>
>> B^D
>>
>> I'm very proud of that.. with just three characters I have captured
>> more humour than atheism has managed in a hundred years of terrorising
>> torturing and killing millions.
>>
>> Everytime I look at it from now on i will be warmed by the laugher
>> at the DEFEAT OF THE ATHESIT TERROR STATES!
>>
>> YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! B^D
>>
>> All those people singing
>>
>> "Free at last
>>
>> Free at last
>>
>> THANK GOD ALMIGHTY .. WE ARE FREE AT LAST!"
>>
>> Seriously, you atheist sad sack, what could be more
>> appropriate for people freed from the yoke of atheist TYRANNY?
>>
>>
>>> Trollpedia is about poking fun at the arguments you make,
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA
>>
>> I have already demonstrated, with your botched attempt to grasp
>> my central thesis, that you don't even KNOW my argument, let
>> alone understand.
>>
>> You have mocked your OWN STRAWMAN, something I have NEVER SAID,
>> and never would, and you don't even understand why.
>>
>> You really are a ridiculous fucktard! B^D
>>
>> " every ... "atheist society" has been an
>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>
>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D
>>
>> Test it. Do a google search for
>>
>> "every so called �atheist society� has been an
>> evil abomination killing and oppressing it's citizens"
>>
>> and see that it's Scat's thesis, NOT MINE!
>>
>>
>>> and so far, you
>>> appear to be backing up fasgnadh's incorrect arguments.
>>
>> Nope, he may be agreeing with my real arguments, as posted,
>> but you don't even know what they are! B^D
>>
>> YOUR attempt to FABRICATE weak strawmen is weak and dishonest.
>>
>>>>>> who gives a shit?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. All the victims of atheist terror, the "evil abomination" as the
>>>>> official atheist website refers to atheists "killing and
>>>>> opressing it's citizens".
>>>>>
>>>>> You can tell it's Scott the atheist webmaster who wrote that from
>>>>> the poor spelling,
>>
>> He's fixed that because it embarassis HIM, and left the LIES
>> he thinks embarass others, he's wrong, they are a BIGGER
>> humiliation for him than mere SPELLING! B^]
>>
>>
>>>>> just check the website to confirm THOSE
>>>>> ARE HIS WORDS, verbatim and properly cited as evidence for
>>>>> the Atheist Crimes Against Humanity trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Anyone who loves freedom and sees how atheists try to crush it,
>>>>> cares
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. decent folk everywhere,care
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Not atheists, clearly,
>>>>
>>>> absolutely!
>>



--

---------

" every ... �atheist society� has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave, quoted from the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh


"Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a part of."

- Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh

Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

So, that's CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE! B^]

Balneave paused between eating a whole cow and being forklifted into a
hospital bed, to proudly describe "The atrocities these states committed"
and admits these atheist states "had leaders who used state-sponsored
atheism as a tool" ibid

All those leaders using state-sponsored atheist ideology were
atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim ill Fuk

The Unspeakable evil of atheist states, by an insider: Scott Balneave..

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...an unspeakably fat glutton who accidentally ate a school bus
full of children for lunch:

http://pics.lockerz.com/s/108323476 8^o


A passer by who had to cross the road to get by him quipped;

"DAMN, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN PREGNANT!" B^D

[felix_unger]

I've never said they do

>
>>> Nobody, or hardly anybody, believes in Quetzalcoatl any more. Is that evidence
>>> Quetzalcoatl *doesn't* exist?
>>>
>>> You can't say belief is evidence for anything, because people can be wrong.
>> but I'm not talking about truth of the belief(s) or facts
> Yes you are. Saying "Billions of people believing in God is evidence that God
> exists" is a truth claim *with regards to the existance of God*.

no, since evidence is not proof.

>
>>> You have to look at REAL evidence, repeatable evidence, to determine if things
>>> exist or not.
>>>
>>> There are LOTS of things that WOULD be considered evidence for a God:
>>>
>>> 1) Finding archaological evidence for, say, one of the miracles listed in the
>>> Bible. Say, if we'd found evidence for the Noahic flood.
>>> 2) Intercessionary prayer were shown to be effective, in some way that would
>>> distinguish it from random chance.
>>> 3) If a "created" creature were found; i.e. we were to find the creationists
>>> fantasy "crockoduck".
>>> 4) If, around places of purported "miracles" there was some sort of recordable
>>> field or energy emission.
>>>
>>> etc. THESE would be evidence; they're observable, measurable, quantifiable,
>>> studyable. We don't see these. All we've got is billions of people who
>>> "believe", and not all in the same thing. They DO have one other thing in
>>> common, though. A strong survival instinct.
>>>
>>> People wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.
>> have I ever said so? no
> So then why argue that belief is evidence?

not belief, the number of believers, and based on the assumption that
ppl don't believe without good reason

but surely that supposes there is no substance to their beliefs?

> If you don't accept my reasoning,
> then we'll have to conclude that you and I simply have different views on what
> constitutes evidence.
>

thanks for the discussion. it's been interesting, and you've given me
food for thought. I've been of the opinion for some time that ppl who
are inclined to theism, and those inclined to atheism, tend to think
differently. we're all different ppl. some are attracted to art, music,
literature, etc., and others mathematics and science. some ppl make good
accounts, some good salesmen. if either had to try to do the others job,
it would probably drive them crazy!

[sbalneav]

You haven't established that those billions of people have had an "experience",
as opposed to simple belief because of parental influence, cultural influence,
etc.

--
(` |) | Enjoy every sandwich.
_) |) | -- Warren Zevon
a.a #2171 |

[sbalneav]

I've provided an alternative "good reason". Fear of non-existance.

No. There's quite a lot of substance; self-preservation. Just not the
substance they're believing in.

>> If you don't accept my reasoning,
>> then we'll have to conclude that you and I simply have different views on what
>> constitutes evidence.

> thanks for the discussion. it's been interesting, and you've given me
> food for thought. I've been of the opinion for some time that ppl who
> are inclined to theism, and those inclined to atheism, tend to think
> differently. we're all different ppl. some are attracted to art, music,
> literature, etc., and others mathematics and science. some ppl make good
> accounts, some good salesmen. if either had to try to do the others job,
> it would probably drive them crazy!

Agreed.

--
(` |) | If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would
_) |) | quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for
a.a #2171 | evil against one another. -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE

[The Magpie]

On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>
> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
> evidence there is for it"
>

> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>
Yes, I do!

[The Magpie]

On 17/03/2013 08:07, felix_unger wrote:
>
> ok. thanks for that. just as a matter of interest, what is your view
> about whether billions of believers are evidence (not proof) for (not
> of) God's existence?
>

Its not evidence. End of.

[felix_unger]

Well you're right. I can't say they all have, and many would be nominal
believers I'm sure, or believe for the reasons you say, but then I don't
have to establish anything, since it's they (many of them) who would
claim to have had spiritual experiences, not me.

[felix_unger]

so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?

[felix_unger]

>> accountants, some good salesmen. if either had to try to do the others job,

>> it would probably drive them crazy!
> Agreed.
>

or as the saying goes.. "One man's meat is another man's poison"

[The Magpie]

On 19/03/2013 01:54, felix_unger wrote:
> On 19-March-2013 1:31 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>> evidence there is for it"
>>>
>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>>
>> Yes, I do!
>
> so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?
>

Why the fuck should they?

The fact - and it is a fact - that belief does not mean there is
evidence does *not* mean that any stupid damn thing "should" be
believed in!

[WangoTango]

In article <aqi0ip...@mid.individual.net>, m...@nothere.com says...
>
> doesn't apply, since I'm not claiming that the billions of ppl who
> believe in God are proof of God only that they're evidence for the
> existence of God.
>
>
No, they're not.
They are only evidence for the belief in a god.

[fasgnadh]

On 19/03/2013 3:05 PM, Olrik wrote:

> On 18/03/2013 9:44 PM, fasgnadh wrote:
>> On 15/03/2013 12:59 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Scat Borg-knave fabricated a strawman and mocked his OWN creation: B^D
>>>>> In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13-March-2013 4:05 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/03/2013 3:17 AM, Davej wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13/03/2013 2:37 AM, fasgnadh wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Communism, of course, is an ideology, of which atheism is a
>>>>>>>>> part of."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Scott Balneave explaining how atheism is part
>>>>>>>>> of Lenin's IDEOLOGY.
>>>>>>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lenin, Scott Balneave's ideological mentor, saying the same thing;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
>>>>>>>>> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, they are both on the same wavelength, rabid anti-theism.

And propaganda. Scott the atheist troll posts under the sockpuppet
nym sbalneav but no one minds because the fat troll is clearly two or
more people in the same skin;

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

...apparently he accidentally ate a school bus full of
children for lunch

and has created an atheist troll website called alt.atheism.Borg as a
troll host for atheist lies slanders and character assassinations:

>>>>>>> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
>>>>>>> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
>>>>>>> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " every ..."atheist society" has been an
>>>>>>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>>>>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]

Not one atheist has disputed Scotts claim!

Atheists appear to share his views! 8^o

The only protest has been to point out his FALSE ATTRIBUTION of that
claim to others.

But atheist liars are always doing that:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Atheists falsely claiming Neil degrassi Tyson is one of them
even after he explicitly told them he isn't an atheist!

They are trolls who will slander ANYONE;

>>>>> why you seem to be backing up fasgnadh's
>>>>> demonstrably wrong thesis about "atheist societies".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a thesis about 'atheist societies', Lardarse, YOU DO: B^]

The ONLY person who has made this claim is the one on whose TROLL
website it appears, Scott Balneave, aka sbalneav:

>>>> " every ... "atheist society" has been an
>>>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>>>
>>>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D
>>>
>>> I've updated your page with links to your postings,
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAA
>>
>> All that shows is ME **QUOTING** you exactly as I have done above! B^D

Scott, like Bukakke has run away from the evidence of his lies.

B^]

It's pathetic to see a grown atheist running and hiding from his OWN
Words!


> can't admit to being an avid atheist.

Well, they are regarded as lower than dog shit by most of the
population, with good reason.

>> I have not said every atheist societies has been an
>> evil abomination, you did. B^]
>>
>> But where is your EVIDENCE, for your claim about atheist societies
>> or your lie about me claiming it!?
>

> Why the shyness

He's been exposed as just another atheist liar,

all he has is lies slander and personal attacks.

He has lost and abandoned the issues of SUBSTANCE!

ie, he's just a TROLL! B^D

"At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one half of the world's
population identified itself as either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,
Hindu or Buddhist, and 100 years of secularism, and technological
advancement, and scientific progress later and that number is now
two thirds.

So, for those of you who enjoy beginning coffee shop
conversations with "The Death of God" .. it's time to change
the subject! It's time to talk about something else , because
it's not happening at all.

People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
and religion itself is also evolving"



- Dr Reza Aslan

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm


---------

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)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)



http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest

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

[felix_unger]

On 20-March-2013 1:10 AM, The Magpie wrote:

> On 19/03/2013 01:54, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 19-March-2013 1:31 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>> evidence there is for it"
>>>>
>>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>>>
>>> Yes, I do!
>> so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?
>>
> Why the fuck should they?

exactly. because there is no evidence of it. which illustrates my point,
that you disagreed with..

"the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
evidence there is for it"

>

> The fact - and it is a fact - that belief does not mean there is
> evidence does *not* mean that any stupid damn thing "should" be
> believed in!

[sbalneav]

In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 20-March-2013 1:10 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>
>> On 19/03/2013 01:54, felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 19-March-2013 1:31 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>>> evidence there is for it"
>>>>>
>>>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do!
>>> so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?
>>>
>> Why the fuck should they?
>
> exactly. because there is no evidence of it. which illustrates my point,
> that you disagreed with..
>
> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
> evidence there is for it"

And you were showed why this was wrong.

>> The fact - and it is a fact - that belief does not mean there is
>> evidence does *not* mean that any stupid damn thing "should" be
>> believed in!
>
>

--

(` |) | I have set my life upon a cast,
_) |) | and I will stand the hazard of the die
a.a #2171 | -- William Shakespeare, "Richard III"

[felix_unger]

On 20-March-2013 12:01 PM, sbalneav wrote:

> In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 20-March-2013 1:10 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/03/2013 01:54, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 19-March-2013 1:31 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>>>> evidence there is for it"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I do!
>>>> so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?
>>>>
>>> Why the fuck should they?
>> exactly. because there is no evidence of it. which illustrates my point,
>> that you disagreed with..
>>
>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>> evidence there is for it"
> And you were showed why this was wrong.

It's NOT wrong. let me rephrase it.. "The more evidence there is for
something the more ppl there will be who believe it". does that make it
easier for you to understand? It's just plain common sense.

>>> The fact - and it is a fact - that belief does not mean there is
>>> evidence does *not* mean that any stupid damn thing "should" be
>>> believed in!
>>


--

[sbalneav]

In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 20-March-2013 12:01 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>
>> In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 20-March-2013 1:10 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/03/2013 01:54, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>> On 19-March-2013 1:31 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>>>>> evidence there is for it"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I do!
>>>>> so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?
>>>>>
>>>> Why the fuck should they?
>>> exactly. because there is no evidence of it. which illustrates my point,
>>> that you disagreed with..
>>>
>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>> evidence there is for it"
>> And you were showed why this was wrong.
>
> It's NOT wrong. let me rephrase it.. "The more evidence there is for
> something the more ppl there will be who believe it". does that make it
> easier for you to understand? It's just plain common sense.

Ahhhh, now we're beginning to get a little better. See before, you were saying
that the fact that the people BELIEVED was the evidence. Now, you've turned it
around: there's just so much evidence, that billions believe it.

So, I have to ask, given this new phrasing you yours:
What evidence is it that the theists have? And more importantly; can they show
it to us?

--
(` |) | To add a library to a house is to give that house a soul.
_) |) | -- Cicero
a.a #2171 |

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 15, 6:35 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> >>> there's little point in continuing the
> >>> conversation. Have a nice life.
> >> and I'm sorry that you can't understand that the number of ppl who
> >> believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it.
>
> > What empirical evidence is there for the existence of God?
>
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

>
> doesn't apply, since I'm not claiming that the billions of ppl who
> believe in God are proof of God only that they're evidence for the
> existence of God.
>
>
>

> > At one time the majority of people believed that the sun orbited the
> > earth. That didn't make it true.
>


;

> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much evidence there is for it"

;
> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?

How about "The number of ppl who believe in a given
religion is directly proportional to the number of ppl
who were born into that religion"?

I have a strong hunch that in any given religion, the
fraction who are there because they abandoned their
birth religion and converted to another one is a small
fraction indeed.

Which then boils down to the number of people whose
culture embraces this religion vs. the number of people
whose culture embraces another.

Which in turn is a matter of historical contingency,
many historical contingencies. Foremost among these
would be conquest, whether military or commercial or
cultural.


NBL
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> "Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[fasgnadh]

Spot Balneave snipped and ran, just like every atheist troll:
<unsnip the evidence>

troll host for atheist lies, slanders and character assassinations:

>>>>>>>>> Scott also explained what the atheist states were like on the
>>>>>>>>> OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE, so this is the orthodox atheist view
>>>>>>>>> from the atheist communities OWN website alt.atheism.org;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " every ..."atheist society" has been an
>>>>>>>>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>>>>>>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]

Not one atheist has disputed Scotts claim!

Atheists apparently share his views! 8^o

The only protest has been to point out his FALSE ATTRIBUTION of HIS

Scot snips, runs away and makes shit up about people.

He's a troll.

>>>> One more chance to show if you can back up your unproven beliefs,
>>>> your FALSE representations, slander and LIES:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU MADE THE UNPROVEN CLAIM:
>>>>
>>>> " every ... "atheist society" has been an
>>>> evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."
>>>>
>>>> - Scott Balneave, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
>>>> http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^D
>>>>
>>>> You haven't provided ANY evidence for YOUR claim!
>>>> It's just another atheist lie.
>>>>
>>>> Then you tried to FALSELY ATTRIBUTE that quote to me, on your Atheist
>>>> TROLL website to be known henceforth as alt.atheism.troll
>>>>
>>>> But you can't produce a single quote by me saying that, the ONLY
>>>> EVIDENCE is what *I* have presented, showing those words are YOURS!

...

>>>>>>> I limit myself

>>>>>>> to what they've posted ON THIS NEWSGROUP,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A complete LIE. You have not responded to anything I have said,
>>>>>> and I have just demonstrated, using the traditional methods of
>>>>>> scholarship, that you do not even understand my thesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have posted YOUR words, revealing YOUR beliefs, and it is no
>>>>>> surprise to anyone that they are utterly MOCKABLE!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have just been mocked, and still don't realise what has been
>>>>>> your undoing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you carry that much BLUBBER, blimp boy, you deny your brain
>>>>>> of oxygen enriched blood, making it easy for me to leave you
>>>>>> bleeding on the LYING ATHEIST PROPAGANDA LIAR slaughterhouse floor.

https://twitter.com/sbalneav

"More MASS than man"

"More MAMMARIES than man"

"More MALICE than man"

"More Moron than Man"


>>>>>> ...has that transvestite prostitute who went missing in the
>>>>>> folds of your double chin been found yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or did you have her for LUNCH! B^D

....

>>>>>> You have not used ANY quotes or material of mine, with the exception
>>>>>> of the B^D

Scott couldn't admit that is true, so he snuck off and added some
quotes, entirely unrelated to his first Big LIE, now exposed.

He just adds more lies hopi9ng no one will notice that he

can't find any evidence of ME saying what HE said:

" every ..."atheist society" has been an
evil abomination killing and opressing it's citizens."

- Scott Balneave aka sbalneav, on the OFFICIAL ATHEIST WEBSITE;
http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:fasgnadh B^]

>>>>>> you have given us a complete fabrication, one hilarious
>>>>>> part of which I have exposed above, and already you are whinging
>>>>>> to the Invisible Umpire...

>>>>>>

Now this cake boy wants to stalk me and carry my picture next to
where his heart should be;

>>>>>>> fasgnadh's never posted a picture of himself,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want you wanking over my picture, you sick pervert!!!!

I've told you Spot, I'm not a fudge packer, you have to get over your
sexual obsession with me;

> It's always about sex with you

Get a life, you sick pervert, what you are doing is sexual harassment,
and I've told you ..I'm straight and obese pigs disgust me.

Try to DEBATE, you prurient porker not mass-debate.

>>>>>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use the pic you have of Chairman Mao, your fellow atheist porker!

[felix_unger]

yeh, I would agree with that

> NBL
>


--
rgds,

Pete
-------

[felix_unger]

On 20-March-2013 1:31 PM, sbalneav wrote:

> In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 20-March-2013 12:01 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20-March-2013 1:10 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/03/2013 01:54, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>> On 19-March-2013 1:31 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>>>>>> evidence there is for it"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I do!
>>>>>> so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why the fuck should they?
>>>> exactly. because there is no evidence of it. which illustrates my point,
>>>> that you disagreed with..
>>>>
>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>> evidence there is for it"
>>> And you were showed why this was wrong.
>> It's NOT wrong. let me rephrase it.. "The more evidence there is for
>> something the more ppl there will be who believe it". does that make it
>> easier for you to understand? It's just plain common sense.
> Ahhhh, now we're beginning to get a little better.

no, you're trying to twist things around. It's the same thing said
differently. I'll spell it out for you, but I shouldn't have to.

no one believes in a flying pork chop (maybe someone might) because
there's no evidence

billions of ppl believe in something because there is ample evidence

so obviously the number of believers is relative to the evidence

or

billions of ppl believe something

therefore that must indicate ample evidence

no one believes something

so that must indicate no evidence


same thing

> See before, you were saying
> that the fact that the people BELIEVED was the evidence.

about God? no, I was saying that because there are billions of believers
that is evidence for God. If there were not evidence, why would there be
billions of believers? I thought we'd ended this discussion?

> Now, you've turned it
> around: there's just so much evidence, that billions believe it.
>
> So, I have to ask, given this new phrasing you yours:
> What evidence is it that the theists have? And more importantly; can they show
> it to us?
>

so you're asking me to speculate? why would ppl worship God or believe
if they got nothing out of it? but you're going beyond what I've said.
all I'm saying is that billions of ppl believing something is evidence
for that thing.

[sbalneav]

Do you need me to look up your quotes and embarass you? Come come...

> no one believes in a flying pork chop (maybe someone might) because
> there's no evidence
>
> billions of ppl believe in something because there is ample evidence

We shall see...

> so obviously the number of believers is relative to the evidence
>
> or
>
> billions of ppl believe something
>
> therefore that must indicate ample evidence

No. This isn't a transitive property. And that's NOT what you said before.

Hold on, let me get a direct quote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.agnosticism/VnPSHBQ7eT4/1rwIW3hNDQgJ

"conversely billions of ppl the world over believing in God

means there must be reason to, and so this belief is evidence for the
existence of God."

This BELIEF is EVIDENCE. Now you're shifting the goalposts. Now you're saying
they believe BECAUSE there's so much evidence. Alright, if that's your new
position, so be it.

> no one believes something
>
> so that must indicate no evidence

It might also indicate a misinterpretation of the existing evidence. Sun.
Earth, etc.

> same thing
>
>> See before, you were saying
>> that the fact that the people BELIEVED was the evidence.
>
> about God? no, I was saying that because there are billions of believers
> that is evidence for God.

Which is an entirely different statement from "billions of ppl believe in
something because there is ample evidence".

> If there were not evidence, why would there be
> billions of believers? I thought we'd ended this discussion?

We had. Now you've moved the goalposts. You've gone from the believers being
the evidence, to the believers HAVING evidence. If you're asserting they have
evidence, then I want to know what that evidence is.

>> Now, you've turned it
>> around: there's just so much evidence, that billions believe it.
>>
>> So, I have to ask, given this new phrasing you yours:
>> What evidence is it that the theists have? And more importantly; can they show
>> it to us?
>>
>
> so you're asking me to speculate?

No, you've made a statement: they believe because of the evidence. I'm asking
you to back it up.

> why would ppl worship God or believe
> if they got nothing out of it?

I've already provided alternative explainations as to what they get out of it.
My explainations don't rely on the supernatural.

> but you're going beyond what I've said.

No, I'm not. You're not consistent in what you're saying. I've demonstrated,
through links to your past quotes, that what you're saying NOW isn't what you
said BEFORE.

> all I'm saying is that billions of ppl believing something is evidence
> for that thing.

Which directly contradicts what you said above, where you indicate that there's
evidence for that thing that causes the believers to believe. So if you can
assert that, I want to know on what basis you know that evidence is there.

--
(` |) | The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.
_) |) | -- Thomas Jefferson
a.a #2171 |

[The Magpie]

On 19/03/2013 23:33, felix_unger wrote:
> On 20-March-2013 1:10 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>
>> On 19/03/2013 01:54, felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 19-March-2013 1:31 AM, The Magpie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/03/2013 01:35, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>>> evidence there is for it"
>>>>>
>>>>> do you wish to assert that this statement is untrue?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do!
>>> so why don't billions of ppl believe in a flying pork chop?
>>>
>> Why the fuck should they?
>
> exactly. because there is no evidence of it. which illustrates my
> point, that you disagreed with..
>

It doe *NOT* illustrate your point because the idea is stark staring
bonkers!! They don't believe it because it is fucking stupid.

But if they *DID* believe it, it would *STILL* be fucking stupid and
no evidence would magically appear just because they believed
something so fucking stupid!

[The Magpie]

On 20/03/2013 01:23, felix_unger wrote:
> [snip]

>
>> And you were showed why this was wrong.
>
> It's NOT wrong. let me rephrase it.. "The more evidence there is for
> something the more ppl there will be who believe it". does that make
> it easier for you to understand? It's just plain common sense.
>

That is *NOT* at all "rephrasing it" - it instead *TOTALLY* changes it
to something quite different.

But it is still wrong and untrue.

[felix_unger]

you're making mountains out of molehills. it's all the same thing.
billions of ppl believe, right? that's not in dispute. billions of ppl
believe because there is cause to. whether we say the belief is the
evidence, or the believers are the evidence, it doesn't really matter,
since they don't believe without cause. ppl don't believe for no reason.
there aren't billions of believers in a flying pork chop! the simple
fact that ppl believe, or that they exist, amounts to the fact that
there's evidence. either the evidence is the believers because they have
reason to believe, or it's the belief because of the reasons \ evidence.
same thing

(You terminated this discussion, and we agreed there was no need to
continue it, just repeating the same stuff over)

>
>> no one believes something
>>
>> so that must indicate no evidence
> It might also indicate a misinterpretation of the existing evidence. Sun.
> Earth, etc.

yes, we agreed on that, and I have never said otherwise

>
>> same thing
>>
>>> See before, you were saying
>>> that the fact that the people BELIEVED was the evidence.
>> about God? no, I was saying that because there are billions of believers
>> that is evidence for God.
> Which is an entirely different statement from "billions of ppl believe in
> something because there is ample evidence".
>
>> If there were not evidence, why would there be
>> billions of believers? I thought we'd ended this discussion?
> We had. Now you've moved the goalposts. You've gone from the believers being
> the evidence, to the believers HAVING evidence. If you're asserting they have
> evidence, then I want to know what that evidence is.

'reasons' might be a better word then, but it's still evidence (to them)

>
>>> Now, you've turned it
>>> around: there's just so much evidence, that billions believe it.
>>>
>>> So, I have to ask, given this new phrasing you yours:
>>> What evidence is it that the theists have? And more importantly; can they show
>>> it to us?
>>>
>> so you're asking me to speculate?
> No, you've made a statement: they believe because of the evidence. I'm asking
> you to back it up.

that's not for me to say, that's up to them. could be what someone else
tells them from their experience. I gave you an example of the drug
dealing bikie. plenty of ppl change their lives because of their faith.
we are talking about spiritual things not tangible things. if you want
to claim or believe things of a spiritual nature don't exist, that's
fine, that's up to you. i don't rule out any possibilities, and my view
is that billions of believers in God must be seen as evidence for God,
whether God exists or not.

>
>> why would ppl worship God or believe
>> if they got nothing out of it?
> I've already provided alternative explainations as to what they get out of it.
> My explainations don't rely on the supernatural.

doesn't rule it out tho

>
>> but you're going beyond what I've said.
> No, I'm not. You're not consistent in what you're saying. I've demonstrated,
> through links to your past quotes, that what you're saying NOW isn't what you
> said BEFORE.

well, like I said, it's all pretty much the same thing. I didn't realize
my posts needed to be able to stand up in a court of law.

>
>> all I'm saying is that billions of ppl believing something is evidence
>> for that thing.
> Which directly contradicts what you said above, where you indicate that there's
> evidence for that thing that causes the believers to believe. So if you can
> assert that, I want to know on what basis you know that evidence is there.
>

I'm assuming it is, or suggesting that it is, for the simple reason that
billions of ppl believe. but that's not to negate of diminish other
possible reasons, such as culture and so on, that you (and others) have
mentioned. but culture, tradition, teaching and so on, alone would not
account for so many believers. they would not persist if their faith was
barren, so to speak, and it doesn't account for (intelligent) ppl being
converted to various faiths either.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

No, it isn't. In one case, there's evidence, which causes the belief. In the
other, there's belief, which you're saying is the evidence.

Sorry, felix, you've clearly moved the goalposts.

> billions of ppl believe, right? that's not in dispute. billions of ppl
> believe because there is cause to. whether we say the belief is the
> evidence, or the believers are the evidence, it doesn't really matter,
> since they don't believe without cause. ppl don't believe for no reason.
> there aren't billions of believers in a flying pork chop! the simple
> fact that ppl believe, or that they exist, amounts to the fact that
> there's evidence. either the evidence is the believers because they have
> reason to believe, or it's the belief because of the reasons \ evidence.
> same thing
>
> (You terminated this discussion, and we agreed there was no need to
> continue it, just repeating the same stuff over)

You've changed your claim, and I'm now dealing with your changed claim.

Am I not free to re-open a discussion when you've changed what you're saying?

>>> no one believes something
>>>
>>> so that must indicate no evidence
>> It might also indicate a misinterpretation of the existing evidence. Sun.
>> Earth, etc.
>
> yes, we agreed on that, and I have never said otherwise
>
>>
>>> same thing
>>>
>>>> See before, you were saying
>>>> that the fact that the people BELIEVED was the evidence.
>>> about God? no, I was saying that because there are billions of believers
>>> that is evidence for God.
>> Which is an entirely different statement from "billions of ppl believe in
>> something because there is ample evidence".
>>
>>> If there were not evidence, why would there be
>>> billions of believers? I thought we'd ended this discussion?
>> We had. Now you've moved the goalposts. You've gone from the believers being
>> the evidence, to the believers HAVING evidence. If you're asserting they have
>> evidence, then I want to know what that evidence is.
>
> 'reasons' might be a better word then, but it's still evidence (to them)

But before, you were stating that the believers WERE the evidence, now you're
saying they HAVE evidence. That's different.

>>>> Now, you've turned it
>>>> around: there's just so much evidence, that billions believe it.
>>>>
>>>> So, I have to ask, given this new phrasing you yours:
>>>> What evidence is it that the theists have? And more importantly; can they show
>>>> it to us?
>>>>
>>> so you're asking me to speculate?
>> No, you've made a statement: they believe because of the evidence. I'm asking
>> you to back it up.
>
> that's not for me to say, that's up to them.

Then how can you assert that they have evidence?

<snip some of the same>

> well, like I said, it's all pretty much the same thing. I didn't realize
> my posts needed to be able to stand up in a court of law.

They don't. We're having a friendly discussion, for amusement, on usenet,
presumably because, if you're like me, it beats the shit intellectually out of
anything on the boob tube these days.

<snip again, for brevity>

--
(` |) | The dissemination of knowledge is one of the
_) |) | cornerstones of civilization.
a.a #2171 | -- John F. Budd

[felix_unger]

I'm not going to go thru this all again. what I am saying (have said?)
is that the more ppl who believe something, the more evidence there's
likely to be for it, and the more evidence there is for something, the
more ppl will be believing it. now that's as plain as the nose on your
face to anyone with common sense. (and if it's not exactly what I have
said, then it's what I'm now saying)

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"It's odd that the word atheist even exists. I don't play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategise? Do non-skiers come together and talk about the fact that they don't ski? 'Agnostic' separates me from the conduct of atheists."
- Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson - http://youtu.be/CzSMC5rWvos

[sbalneav]

That's your prerogative.

> what I am saying (have said?)
> is that the more ppl who believe something, the more evidence there's
> likely to be for it, and the more evidence there is for something, the
> more ppl will be believing it. now that's as plain as the nose on your
> face to anyone with common sense. (and if it's not exactly what I have
> said, then it's what I'm now saying)

Then if that's now what your saying, I'm asking: on what basis do you assert
they have evidence? Are you simply accepting their word for it?

--
(` |) | Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide
_) |) | awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.
a.a #2171 | -- Carl Sagan

[felix_unger]

On 21-March-2013 10:49 PM, sbalneav wrote:

> In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 21-March-2013 2:36 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>> evidence there is for it" do you wish to assert that this statement

>>>> is untrue? I didn't realize my posts needed to be able to stand up

>>>> in a court of law.
>>> They don't. We're having a friendly discussion, for amusement, on usenet,
>>> presumably because, if you're like me, it beats the shit intellectually out of
>>> anything on the boob tube these days.

( I think you mean just 'tube'. a 'boob tube' is what teenage girls wear. )

yeh, I don't watch much tv, mostly movies. we have cable here, so I
mostly watch that.

>
>> what I am saying (have said?)
>> is that the more ppl who believe something, the more evidence there's
>> likely to be for it, and the more evidence there is for something, the
>> more ppl will be believing it. now that's as plain as the nose on your
>> face to anyone with common sense. (and if it's not exactly what I have
>> said, then it's what I'm now saying)
> Then if that's now what your saying,

and as far as I'm concerned it's exactly what I've been saying

> I'm asking: on what basis do you assert
> they have evidence? Are you simply accepting their word for it?
>

I take their word for it, but I don't accept what is said as fact or true.

[sbalneav]

In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 21-March-2013 10:49 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>
>> In alt.agnosticism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 21-March-2013 2:36 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.atheism felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>> "the number of ppl who believe something is relative to how much
>>>>> evidence there is for it" do you wish to assert that this statement
>>>>> is untrue? I didn't realize my posts needed to be able to stand up
>>>>> in a court of law.
>>>> They don't. We're having a friendly discussion, for amusement, on usenet,
>>>> presumably because, if you're like me, it beats the shit intellectually out of
>>>> anything on the boob tube these days.
>
>
> ( I think you mean just 'tube'. a 'boob tube' is what teenage girls wear. )

I think that's a difference between North American and Australian slang. Duly
noted.

> yeh, I don't watch much tv, mostly movies. we have cable here, so I
> mostly watch that.

>>> what I am saying (have said?)
>>> is that the more ppl who believe something, the more evidence there's
>>> likely to be for it, and the more evidence there is for something, the
>>> more ppl will be believing it. now that's as plain as the nose on your
>>> face to anyone with common sense. (and if it's not exactly what I have
>>> said, then it's what I'm now saying)
>> Then if that's now what your saying,
>
> and as far as I'm concerned it's exactly what I've been saying

What's inside your head, and what's actually part of the record on usenet,
howevere, are two different things.

>> I'm asking: on what basis do you assert
>> they have evidence? Are you simply accepting their word for it?
>>
>
> I take their word for it, but I don't accept what is said as fact or true.

Then you can't say "They have evidence". You *can* say "They think they have
evidence" or "They assert they have evidence".

--
(` |) | Knowledge: noun. The small part of ignorance that we
_) |) | arrange and classify.
a.a #2171 | -- Ambrose Bierce. "The Devil's Dictionary"

[felix_unger]

more likely they believe they have evidence, or proof

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common to some or all of the Savior cults of antiquity" --JM Robertson, Pagan Christs

http://truthbeknown.com/

http://theangryatheist.weebly.com