Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-16 09:58 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 16/08/2015 12:53, niunian wrote:
>> On 2015-08-16 01:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <mqke7a$vf2$9...@dont-email.me>,
>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-13 09:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>
>>>> By definition, God rules the world of living, the devil rules the
>>>> world of death.
>>>
>>> And what definition is _that_?
>>
>> It's the definition of God as the living God who gives life to all
>> living things. Without God, all living things will die, and the world of
>> living will cease to exist.
>
> <looks around>
>
> No god, and everything is still here...

The God of living is from within, not without. So stop looking around,
there is nothing you can see with your eyes or hear with your ears. It's
called a realization from the within.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-17 12:48 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:11:12 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-16 04:42 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:36:40 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-16 01:14 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 07:51:04 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-08-15 03:16 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:24:50 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-13 10:53 PM, Alex W. wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On 13/08/2015 13:30, niunian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down to the
>>>>>>>>>> god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Any more god head you can think of in your atheist life?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHy should death be evil?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because killing life is evil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yeah LOL you should have told that to your god, it has murdered more
>>>>>>> people than small pox, oh wait it made small pox also, so it gets
>>>>>>> credit for all of those, ok then it has killed more people than
>>>>>>> hitler, oh wait according to you it made hitler so it gets credit for
>>>>>>> all of those also, I guess you are just fucked
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a natural part of the cycle of life. Decay and death feeds new
>>>>>>>>> growth. Death is *good*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. I guess the death in peace without suffering can be an exception.
>>>>>>>> It can be considered the freedom of the soul from this physical existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hell when your god kills it will torture the fuck out of people,
>>>>>>> drowning, burning, disease... boy that sounds like a real stand up guy
>>>>>>> that god of yours
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. None of anything you have said including what you mentioned from
>>>>>> the Bible has anything to do with the God of living. The God of living
>>>>>> only gives life. Only the force of evil and sometimes it is the force of
>>>>>
>>>>> hey buddy whatever you have to tell yourself to wake up in the morning
>>>>> is fine with me, but the truth is if you want to believe in this god
>>>>> of yous then you must believe the only history and ONLY informatin
>>>>> available which is the bible, so everything I said about what your god
>>>>> is, to you and every other theist, holds true. so you go on
>>>>> worshiping a murderer, rapist, torturer, pedofile. egomaniac.
>>>>
>>>> Except I don't. I only worship the God of living. I don't worship the
>>>> God of killing. That's a different God.
>>>
>>> ah now I understand you other post about there beng two gods.... It
>>> would seem that you have just confirmed you ability to act just like a
>>> christian....
>>
>> I'm not. I'm just a believer of God. I don't belong to any religion, but
>> I'm familiar with the Christian faith.
>
> and you are just as fickle as those christian idiots

Really? I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. Can you explain?

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> nature would take life. God as the source and energy of all living
>>>>>> things does not kill life. For God to kill life, it would mean God has
>>>>>> killed himself. It's stupid to even imagine such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> no what is stupid is for you to continue to tell your self lies so
>>>>> that you can believe the lie that your imaginary god is real
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Empty claim without evidence. Where did I lie?
>>>
>>> well you previos post made no sense, just like what you just said.
>>> Senseless jibber jabber.
>>>
>>
>> That's too bad. I try my best to make it as simple as possible.
>
>

[niunian]

On 2015-08-16 10:55 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <mqpvas$r80$1...@dont-email.me>,
> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>
>>>> Well, if we can agree on the fact of life which shows everybody
>>>> including the atheists has a god of their own on a personal
>>>> level,
>>>
>>> We can't. You use the words 'god' and 'God' in ways that are so
>>> non-standard that I doubt you make sense to anyone but yourself.
>>
>> That only because you have never thought of God/god on a personal
>> level. God is not out there in the sky. God is within you who is
>> the center of your life. You actually live your life for God even
>> when you call yourself an atheist. When you don't live your life
>> for the God within you, you always suffer in life. There is no
>> exception for everybody. It's universal.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> My claim is based on the assumption that every life is precious
>>>> and has a purpose. It's rather straight forward common sense.
>>>
>>> "Common sense" here means "I sure looks like X to *me*, therefore it
>>> must look that way to everybody." It proves nothing.
>>
>> I fail to see there is anything difficult to understand. Perhaps
>> you need to look within yourself and your life in order to
>> understand what I'm talking about.
>
> This is where I stop talking to you. You've played the smarmy "If
> you weren't so shallow and small-minded then you'd agree with me"
> card one time too many.
>
> -- wds
>

Now you misunderstood me. That was an honest suggestion.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:48:37 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-08-17 12:45 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:46:14 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-08-16 04:02 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:25:55 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqn4v1$b85$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-08-15 05:31 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:30:57 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqke7a$vf2$9...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2015-08-13 09:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <mqi4cj$v8l$2...@dont-email.me>,

>>>>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> -- wds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By definition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What definition?
>>>>>
>>>>> The definition of God as the living source and energy of all living things.
>>>>
>>>> Just where can this definition be found? Please include supporting
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> Genesis.
>>
>> so you also think that your god sent down the 7 plagues or whatever
>> that tortured all those people?
>
>As I said somewhere else, after the fall, the sin has
>introduced/manufactured another "God" which is the God of killing. As
>far as I know, that "God" can actually speak to people with the voices
>in their mind telling them to kill other people. George W. Bush should
>testify for that. He claimed to hear such voices before he decided to
>start the Iraq war.
>

Freakin moron.....

[niunian]

On 2015-08-16 11:55 PM, John Ritson wrote:
> In article <mqpvas$r80$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>

> writes
>> On 2015-08-16 01:33 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <mqke7b$vf2$1...@dont-email.me>,

>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Living itself is a purpose. And it is a great purpose. It is to

>>>>>> worship the God of living.
>>>>>

>>>>> Well I guess if you're going to anthropomorphize -- excuse me,
>>>>> deus-morphize -- _any_ concept, then yes, any concept is a God of
>>>>> something. That gets us rather deep into "so what?" territory though.

>>>>
>>>> Well, if we can agree on the fact of life which shows everybody
>>>> including the atheists has a god of their own on a personal level,
>>>
>>> We can't. You use the words 'god' and 'God' in ways that are so
>>> non-standard that I doubt you make sense to anyone but yourself.
>>
>> That only because you have never thought of God/god on a personal level.
>> God is not out there in the sky. God is within you who is the center of
>> your life. You actually live your life for God even when you call
>> yourself an atheist.

> So (according to you) everybody lives their life for God.

>> When you don't live your life for the God within
>> you, you always suffer in life.

> But since (according to you) everybody lives their life for God, nobody
> 'always suffers'.
> You are just talking rubbish.

No. If we can always live our lives for God, we would never suffer. The
reason we do suffer in life, is because we sometimes stop living our
lives for God. God is the source of our spiritual energy like happiness,
peace, love, satisfaction, etc. When we don't live our lives for God, we
wouldn't get any of those good things from God. When life is without
happiness, peace, love, and satisfaction, life becomes suffering.

>> There is no exception for everybody.
>> It's universal.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> My claim is based on the assumption that every life is precious
>>>> and has a purpose. It's rather straight forward common sense.
>>>
>>> "Common sense" here means "I sure looks like X to *me*, therefore it
>>> must look that way to everybody." It proves nothing.
>>
>> I fail to see there is anything difficult to understand. Perhaps you
>> need to look within yourself and your life in order to understand what
>> I'm talking about.
>>
>>>

>>> -- wds
>>>
>>
>

[niunian]

Why? what's the problem?

:-)

[The Starmaker]

bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:05:31 -0500, gilber34 <inv...@invalid.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 8/15/2015 9:43 AM, talishi wrote:
> >> >> niunian wrote:
> >> >>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote:
> >> >>>> niunian wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God
> >> >>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of
> >> >>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of
> >> >>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the
> >> >>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same
> >> >>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the
> >> >>>>> place of the previous creation God.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up
> >> >>> your mind.
> >> >>
> >> >> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and
> >> >> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as
> >> >> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and
> >> >> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens".
> >> >
> >> >you don't "know" that.
> >> >Lots of people believe in "Dune" especially Atheists.
> >>
> >> well as an atheist I can tell you that it was a damn good book, but
> >> atheists dont believe in fairy tale books like theists do.
> >
> >That's not true...
> >'the scientific community' who
> >the majority are atheist..
> >read fairy tales and science fiction.
> >(which are both fabricated fiction stories)
> >
> >How many times have the 'scientific community' used words
> >from "Goldilocks" fairy tales, or H.G. Wells tales?
> >
> >'the scientific community' live and breathe fairy tales.
> >
> >They believe that life exist on other planets. Where did they get that idea from?
> >
> >"flying saucers"? just fairy tales.
> >
> >Life on Mars?? They won't quit until you shoot them!
> >
> >
> >The only reason the 'scientific community' believes in life in
> >other planets is because of those science fiction fairy tales they read...
> >there is no other logical reason to believe in life on other planets.
> >
> > "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.
> >
> >So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.
> >
> >"This porridge is too cold," she said
> >
> >So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.
> >
> >"Ahhh, this porridge is just right,"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale.
>
> no response even needed



There are atheist members in the 'scienticic community' who don't believe in God but believe in...flying saucers.

Is there a name for that insanity?





.
o . | o
. . -O- .
. o __\/__ |
/ .-. \ o .
==== / (c"}) \
=== _/__`(_)'_\_\_ . o
==== (______________)
// || \\ o .
o OO OO OO
. . o

| o . .
-O-
o | o .

.

[hanson]

<niu...@ymail.com> "niunian" who is a 19 year old
Bible Beater <snip most of his un-godly crap> wrote: ...
"As I said somewhere else, the God of killing can actually

speak to people with the voices in their mind telling them
to kill other people.

George W. Bush claimed to hear such voices before he

decided to start the Iraq war".
>

hanson wrote:
It was not a "God". It was God's "chosen people", like
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Rob
Loewenberg, David Wurmser and Meyrav Wurmser, etc,
known as Neo-cons, whose voices GW Bush heard loud
and clear and got into his head that urged the killing and
goaded GW into starting the Iraq war, ... to get rid of
Iraq's Saddam Hussein for him having lobbed a few Scud
missiles into Israel 5 years earlier during Gulf war 1.
>
< https://www.google.com/search?q=+Neo+con+war+party+&ie= >
<http://groups.google.com/group/uk.media.tv.time-team/msg/3b5db648199ccfe5>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/69f1aedfd606fc46>
>
After Saddam got hung, Bush became expendable for these
kikes and Wolfowitz became president of the World Bank...
>
and the other kikes then turned their attention to their next
goal, who was a dude by name of B. Hussein Obama, who
became their messenger boy for the aims of these FAR
LEFT kikes, who function as his handlers, puppeteers and
>
controllers like Jew David Axelrod, Obama's Campaign
manager, Jew Rahm Emanuel Obama's WH Chief of Staff
and Jew Ezekiel Emanuel, Architect of Obama-care,
Advisor Jew Jonathan Gruber, Shicksah Lois Lerner,
the IRS Boss & a long list of others, all the way up to the
Supreme Court & the Fed. Reserve, etc... &
>
Now, that things have not worked out smooth enough, this
same type of FAR LEFT Marxist commie kikes are hiding
their Judaism and label themselves as "committed Atheists"
and are busily with their machinations behind candidates
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump... ... News @ 11....
>
God works in mysterious ways, n'est's pas, you sorry
Bible beater! ... Thanks for the laughs though...
ahahahahahahanson



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[benj]

> no response even needed.

While usually when starfaker is pretending to talk science but is
babbling on in his lib ignorance, no response is even needed, but in
this case it is instructive to respond and explain.

While this is not really necessary, it's easy to prove Starfaker a
moron. Simply take his statement "there are no Martians.... never was".

(And Starfaker you ignorant Lib an elipsis consists of three not four
periods and has a space at the beginning. Sheesh. I hope you never try
to make me a "star".)

So just HOW does he know this? Clearly, the only way he can know this
(which amazingly includes all other dimensions and things we haven't
even thought or discovered yet AS WELL AS the entire history of the
planet Mars) is to use his superpowers to "remote view" it all to give
us this assurance. Nuff said. He'd save bandwidth by simply using the
"short form" = "I'm a moron!"

So does the scientific community believe life exists on other planets?
Well being scientists and not media whores, They say something like:
What do you mean by "life" and what do you mean by planet? By "life" do
you mean humanoids like us, or some kind of low bacteria. When NASA
talks about finding "life on other planets" (Like Mars) They are ALWAYS
talking about bacteria. And often (but not always) talking about some
planet orbiting some other star than our own. In other words some
speculation about what is going on on the other side of the universe
which like all cosmology, without "remote viewing", we can never
directly observe.

But this is because Humanoid life other than our own is a political
topic now just as it was in the days when the Catholic Church ran
everything. In science it is a "forbidden topic". A paper about it no
matter how well documented will NEVER be published in a major journal
and your career will speedily head for termination or stagnation at
best. Everybody knows this.

What isn't so widely considered is WHY. And the reason is a huge
government cover-up on the subject of UFOs that has been going one since
WWII at least. Don't believe it? It's all documented HERE:

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronology/dp/1571743170/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1439792858&sr=8-3&keywords=Richard+M%2F+Dolan

in yawn inducing gruesome detail. As usual proof that there is a
cover-up is FAR easier than proving what the cover-up is about. So we'll
leave the question of the UFO occupants for lack of proof. But The fact
that the cover-up has gone on for so long explains why the topic is
"forbidden".

And this leaves us with one final question: Should scientist believe in
the existence of humanoid life somewhere in the universe (Note planet
here includes those around ANY stars not just our own) The answer based
upon probability alone has to be YES. Why? Because of the vast NUMBER of
even galaxies let alone stars. No thinking scientist or even
self-respecting atheist can DENY the enormously high probability that
there are doubtless MANY other situations out there similar enough to or
own as to make such an event as formation of similar life virtually
beyond doubt! Only the ego of the Lib factions of humanity have the ego
to think they they are so special, physics quit and broke the mold after
they were formed. The probably of humanoid life on other planets, even
humanoid life far more advanced than our own, is FAR more likely than
the statistics supporting the idea that we "evolved" from lower animals,
apes in particular.

The bottom line is that other humanoid life in the universe is virtually
beyond doubt to anyone with even a modest knowledge of science and math.
It is clear that government and it's handmaiden the media, has been
spoon feeding (and sometimes force feeding) the "bacteria story" to
everyone as a cover-up of credible UFO phenomena being observed
everywhere over a great many years. It's all as simple as this.


I now turn you back to all the strategic writers (part of the cover-up)
who will all scream "kook" and "insane" as if it were some kind of
scientific proof of something. Note that like Starfaker, they are all
"writers" and know nothing of science. Their main areas of expertise
being lies and fantasy.














--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[niunian]

On 2015-08-17 01:04 PM, hanson wrote:
> God works in mysterious ways, n'est's pas, you sorry
> Bible beater! ... Thanks for the laughs though... ahahahahahahanson
>

Adam said, the woman told me to do it.

Bush said, God told me to do it.

Different stories, same kind of shit.

[hanson]

<niu...@ymail.com> "niunian" who is a 19 year old

Bibleier kept on beating off onto his Bible & wrote:
> Adam said, the woman told me to do it.
> Bush said, God told me to do it.
> Different stories, same kind of shit.
>

hanson wrote:
So, now your Bible is "shit". Good; you're a fast learner.
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahahanson

[niunian]

On 2015-08-17 05:56 PM, Attila < wrote:

> It sounds like ambiguous poppycock to me.

Why？ Is it because no one ever told you that the spiritual world was
from the within?

>
> --
> Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
>
> Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially
> those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.
>
> Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
> guaranteed above average income for every person.
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification as the only option.
>
> If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
> before you run into me.
>

[niunian]

On 2015-08-17 06:07 PM, Attila < wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:04:37 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqpu6g$mgr$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-16 04:08 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:51 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqouen$fsa$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-15 10:43 PM, talishi wrote:
>>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote:
>>>>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God
>>>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of
>>>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of
>>>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the
>>>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same
>>>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the
>>>>>>>> place of the previous creation God.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It turns out the previous creation God was manufactured as well.
>>>>>>> Humans have manufactured at least 5,000 of them.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up
>>>>>> your mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and
>>>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as
>>>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and
>>>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens".
>>>>

>>>> The Bible is a spiritual teaching that explains the philosophy of life.
>>>> If you are not interested in that, there is no point to talk about the
>>>> Bible at all. Go back to your science class and stay away from
>>>> philosophy, then you will not be bothered by what's in the Bible.
>>>
>>> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many
>>> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept
>>> it as true also.
>>>
>>> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your
>>> god-fearing neighbors.
>>
>> Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book?
>
> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame
> for anything.
>
> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether
> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same.

That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about
an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested?

[niunian]

On 2015-08-17 05:55 PM, Attila < wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:53:17 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqpth7$jil$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-16 01:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <mqke7a$vf2$9...@dont-email.me>,
>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-13 09:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>
>>>> By definition, God rules the world of living, the devil rules the
>>>> world of death.
>>>
>>> And what definition is _that_?
>>
>> It's the definition of God as the living God who gives life to all
>> living things.
>

> But where is this definition found?

The Bible in Genesis.

>
>> Without God, all living things will die, and the world of
>> living will cease to exist.
>

> What evidence do you have that any god ever existed? Please use
> verified sources only, and no vague ambiguities.

The issue of God's existence is a personal one. I can't give you my
experience of God. You have to have your own experience to truly
understand the meaning of God. I can only show you where you can find
your own God. He is within you as the center of your life. You live your
life for him, and he rewards you with happiness and love in life.

Once again, this isn't your elementary science education, so stop asking
for the "evidence" of God like a total idiot. Can you give me ten pounds
of love and three ounces of wisdom? If not, there is no such thing as
the evidence of God either. The entire universe is God's manifestation.
You can not claim one part of the universe is God's evidence but the
other part is not.

[Alex W.]

On 17/08/2015 10:56, Attila < wrote:

> It sounds like ambiguous poppycock to me.

There's nothing ambiguous about it being poppycock.

[niunian]

You are absolutely right. The Bible is filled with total bullshit made
by the sinners. It's meant to give people the chance to learn from their
own bullshit.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-17 05:50 PM, Attila < wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:46:14 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqpt3u$hr9$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-16 04:02 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:25:55 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqn4v1$b85$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-15 05:31 PM, Attila < wrote:

>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:30:57 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqke7a$vf2$9...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-08-13 09:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <mqi4cj$v8l$2...@dont-email.me>,

>>>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> -- wds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By definition
>>>>>
>>>>> What definition?
>>>>
>>>> The definition of God as the living source and energy of all living things.
>>>
>>> Just where can this definition be found? Please include supporting
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Genesis.
>

> Sorry, that source is rejected as being unverified. Everything it
> says should be ignored.
>
> I am still waiting for a reference to a verified source, with
> supporting evidence.

In that case, your request is denied. Philosophy doesn't need the
approval of the physical scientist. Take it or leave it. This has
nothing to do with your scientific research. This is to learn and
understand the philosophy of life.

[Alex W.]

If you want to reduce suffering, you could start by learning the proper
etiquette for posting on Usenet: when there are bits of the post below
the part you are responding to, it is considered polite to snip them
before hitting "send".

As for suffering for failure to "live our lives for god", maybe you
should chat to a Hasidim sometime. They do truly make a concerted
effort to obey all 600-odd divine commandments, and consequently twist
their entire lives into pretzel shape in this impossible pursuit. Even
they will tell you that it is flat out impossible, so even the attempt
imposes suffering.

[Alex W.]

I did experience that once.
It was a fever-induced hallucination.
I recovered.

[nature bats last]

.> > But since (according to you) everybody lives their life for God, nobody
.> > 'always suffers'.

.> > You are just talking rubbish.

.> No. If we can always live our lives for God, we would never suffer.

Try that one out on someone with reflex sympathetic dystrophy
or paroxysmal extreme pain disorder or complex regional pain syndrome.


Seth

[kefischer]

More nonsense about nothingness cross-posted
indiscriminately.

[kefischer]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:28:17 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-08-17 05:50 PM, Attila < wrote nonsense;

[kefischer]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:39:52 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

[kefischer]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:40:33 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[niunian]

Nothing to do with hallucinations. It's just simple understanding with
the power to change one's life. The mind is clear and at peace. No
visual image, and no voices in the mind.

[niunian]

Sure. Not a problem for me. I will try to do that.

>
> As for suffering for failure to "live our lives for god", maybe you
> should chat to a Hasidim sometime. They do truly make a concerted
> effort to obey all 600-odd divine commandments, and consequently twist
> their entire lives into pretzel shape in this impossible pursuit. Even
> they will tell you that it is flat out impossible, so even the attempt
> imposes suffering.

As far as I know, there is no commandment from the God of living. For
the God of killing? it may be another matter. However, there is the edge
of the cliff one is advised not to step over, but that is something only
for specific individual under special circumstances. It's not everyday
for someone to wandering on a cliff.

[hanson]

"kefischer" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-08-17 03:38 PM, hanson wrote:
>>> <niu...@ymail.com> "niunian" who is a 19 year old
>>> Bibleier kept on beating off onto his Bible & wrote:
>>>> Adam said, the woman told me to do it.
>>>> Bush said, God told me to do it.
>>>> Different stories, same kind of shit.
>>>>
>>> hanson wrote:
>>> So, now your Bible is "shit". Good; you're a fast learner.
>>> Thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahahanson
>>>
The Bible Masturbator "niunian" sinned and wrote:
>>You are absolutely right. The Bible is filled with total bullshit made
>>by the sinners. It's meant to give people the chance to learn from their
>>own bullshit.
>

<e-moneyjoe> kike fischer" wrote:
More nonsense about nothingness cross-posted
> indiscriminately.
>

hanson wrote:
Hey Joe, cut some slack for "niunian" the sorry
Bible beat-off artist. "niunian" just admi9tted that
he is a sinner and cannot see nor learn from his
own bullshit: "Different storys, same kind of shit"
he said. Thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahahanson.

[niunian]

> ..> > But since (according to you) everybody lives their life for God, nobody
> ..> > 'always suffers'.
> ..> > You are just talking rubbish.
>
>
> ..> No. If we can always live our lives for God, we would never suffer.

>
> Try that one out on someone with reflex sympathetic dystrophy
> or paroxysmal extreme pain disorder or complex regional pain syndrome.

For people who have to live a difficult life, when they live their life
for God, they may still have to endure the physical pain in their body,
but they don't have to endure any mental suffering in their mind. There
isn't any to begin with. In fact, they may be given the extra strength
to help them to endure the extra physical pain so that they can overcome
their difficulty. To them, failure will never discourage them, each time
they fail, it will only make them coming back to start a more fierce
struggle. It's all because they live their lives for God, they have
nothing to worry about.

[nature bats last]

.> > Try that one out on someone with reflex sympathetic dystrophy
.> > or paroxysmal extreme pain disorder or complex regional pain syndrome.

.> For people who have to live a difficult life, when they live their life
.> for God, they may still have to endure the physical pain in their body,
.> but they don't have to endure any mental suffering in their mind. There
.> isn't any to begin with. In fact, they may be given the extra strength
.> to help them to endure the extra physical pain so that they can overcome
.> their difficulty. To them, failure will never discourage them, each time
.> they fail, it will only make them coming back to start a more fierce
.> struggle. It's all because they live their lives for God, they have
,> nothing to worry about.

Are you speaking from personal experience with extreme
and omnipresent pain?


Seth

[kefischer]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:51:06 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

[kefischer]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:10:27 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-08-17 08:39 PM, Alex W. wrote:

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:

> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > bil...@m.nu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:05:31 -0500, gilber34 <inv...@invalid.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >

> > > > > >On 8/15/2015 9:43 AM, talishi wrote:
> > > > > >> niunian wrote:
> > > > > >>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote:
> > > > > >>>> niunian wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God
> > > > > >>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of
> > > > > >>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of
> > > > > >>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the
> > > > > >>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same
> > > > > >>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the
> > > > > >>>>> place of the previous creation God.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >

> > > > > >>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up
> > > > > >>> your mind.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and
> > > > > >> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as
> > > > > >> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and
> > > > > >> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens".
> > > > > >

> > > > > >you don't "know" that.
> > > > > >Lots of people believe in "Dune" especially Atheists.
> > > > >
> > > > > well as an atheist I can tell you that it was a damn good book, but
> > > > > atheists dont believe in fairy tale books like theists do.
> > > >
> > > > That's not true...
> > > > 'the scientific community' who
> > > > the majority are atheist..
> > > > read fairy tales and science fiction.
> > > > (which are both fabricated fiction stories)
> > > >
> > > > How many times have the 'scientific community' used words
> > > > from "Goldilocks" fairy tales, or H.G. Wells tales?
> > > >
> > > > 'the scientific community' live and breathe fairy tales.
> > > >
> > > > They believe that life exist on other planets. Where did they get that idea from?
> > > >
> > > > "flying saucers"? just fairy tales.
> > > >
> > > > Life on Mars?? They won't quit until you shoot them!
> > > >
> > > > The only reason the 'scientific community' believes in life in
> > > > other planets is because of those science fiction fairy tales they read...
> > > > there is no other logical reason to believe in life on other planets.
> > > >
> > > > "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.
> > > >
> > > > So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.
> > > >
> > > > "This porridge is too cold," she said
> > > >
> > > > So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.
> > > >
> > > > "Ahhh, this porridge is just right,"
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale.
>

> In other words...
>
> Martians are just a fabricated being created by science fiction fairy tales. It's fantasty.
>
> There are no Martians, ....only Atheist believe in Martians.
>
> God created only one Earth....with earthlings.
>
> People from other planets are just...fairy tales.
>
> Wasn't it H.G. Wells the one who invented the word ...Martians????
>
> Adult fairy tales.



http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/08/15/apollo-14-astronaut-claims-peace-loving-aliens-prevented-nuclear-war-on-earth/


astro-nuts.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <b0ab36ab-3f79-4496...@googlegroups.com>,

There are few things that cause "suffering in their mind" more than
perpetual severe pain. Why did you say something so incredibly stupid?


> .> There

> .> isn't any to begin with. In fact, they may be given the extra strength
> .> to help them to endure the extra physical pain so that they can overcome
> .> their difficulty. To them, failure will never discourage them, each time
> .> they fail, it will only make them coming back to start a more fierce
> .> struggle. It's all because they live their lives for God, they have
> ,> nothing to worry about.
>
> Are you speaking from personal experience with extreme
> and omnipresent pain?

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info

[The Starmaker]

Attila < wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker

> <star...@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <55D042...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale.
>

> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot
> of planets out there.


There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props.

[The Starmaker]

Alex W. wrote:
>
> On 16/08/2015 12:53, niunian wrote:
> > On 2015-08-16 01:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> >> In article <mqke7a$vf2$9...@dont-email.me>,
> >> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
> >>
> >>> On 2015-08-13 09:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> >>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
> >>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
> >>>>
> >>>> Um, what definition is that?
> >>>
> >>> By definition, God rules the world of living, the devil rules the
> >>> world of death.
> >>
> >> And what definition is _that_?
> >
> > It's the definition of God as the living God who gives life to all
> > living things. Without God, all living things will die, and the world of
> > living will cease to exist.
>
> <looks around>
>
> No god, and everything is still here...

what do you think a fish sees when he <looks around> from inside the
aquarium tank?


You can now be looking at God but simply don't understand what you're
seeing.

So, it looks as if God is not there...


you have fish eyes.

[Olrik]

You should be in an institution.


--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 06:48 AM, Attila < wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:28:17 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqsju3$991$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- wds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By definition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What definition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The definition of God as the living source and energy of all living things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just where can this definition be found? Please include supporting
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Genesis.
>>>
>>> Sorry, that source is rejected as being unverified. Everything it
>>> says should be ignored.
>>>
>>> I am still waiting for a reference to a verified source, with
>>> supporting evidence.
>>
>> In that case, your request is denied. Philosophy doesn't need the
>> approval of the physical scientist. Take it or leave it. This has
>> nothing to do with your scientific research. This is to learn and
>> understand the philosophy of life.
>

> Sorry. I thought you were talking about realty and not unsupported
> speculative drivel. Forgive me for expecting something substantial
> from you.

If philosophy is nothing but unsupported speculative drivel to you, then
I feel sorry too. In fact, from my philosophical point of view, what you
call reality is what I call illusion of the mind. That makes me even sadder.

[Rudy Canoza]

You should be dead and have worms eating your body.

[Olrik]

Why the conditional?

[Rudy Canoza]

What conditional, fuckwit? There was no conditional.

Maybe you're not a native English speaker after all.

However...you need to stop with the "a écrit" bullshit, espèce de con.
Tu n'ecris pas dans un forum francophone. Arrête avec ta connerie.

[The Starmaker]

benj wrote:

>
> On 08/16/2015 04:37 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker

> >> Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale.
> >
> >

> > no response even needed.
>
> While usually when starfaker is pretending to talk science but is
> babbling on in his lib ignorance, no response is even needed, but in
> this case it is instructive to respond and explain.
>
> While this is not really necessary, it's easy to prove Starfaker a
> moron. Simply take his statement "there are no Martians.... never was".
>
> (And Starfaker you ignorant Lib an elipsis consists of three not four
> periods and has a space at the beginning. Sheesh. I hope you never try
> to make me a "star".)
>
> So just HOW does he know this? Clearly, the only way he can know this
> (which amazingly includes all other dimensions and things we haven't
> even thought or discovered yet AS WELL AS the entire history of the
> planet Mars) is to use his superpowers to "remote view" it all to give
> us this assurance. Nuff said. He'd save bandwidth by simply using the
> "short form" = "I'm a moron!"
>
> So does the scientific community believe life exists on other planets?
> Well being scientists and not media whores, They say something like:
> What do you mean by "life" and what do you mean by planet? By "life" do
> you mean humanoids like us, or some kind of low bacteria. When NASA
> talks about finding "life on other planets" (Like Mars) They are ALWAYS
> talking about bacteria.

NASA would NEVER say, "We are not looking for life, we're looking for bacteria!"


Because nobody would give them a penny.




> And often (but not always) talking about some
> planet orbiting some other star than our own. In other words some
> speculation about what is going on on the other side of the universe
> which like all cosmology, without "remote viewing", we can never
> directly observe.


What is all this talk about "remote viewing"? Is it Shirley Maclaine week????



>
> But this is because Humanoid life other than our own is a political
> topic now just as it was in the days when the Catholic Church ran
> everything. In science it is a "forbidden topic". A paper about it no
> matter how well documented will NEVER be published in a major journal
> and your career will speedily head for termination or stagnation at
> best. Everybody knows this.
>
> What isn't so widely considered is WHY. And the reason is a huge
> government cover-up on the subject of UFOs that has been going one since
> WWII at least. Don't believe it? It's all documented HERE:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronology/dp/1571743170/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1439792858&sr=8-3&keywords=Richard+M%2F+Dolan


Documented on Amazon??? a book store? 2 cents for the book, $5.00 for shipping?



Why is there only one seeder?
https://thepiratebay.la/torrent/7619400/UFOs_and_the_National_Security_State_-_Cover-Up_-_2_Volumes_MOBI


Why would you point to a link to a book out of a billion seeders, there is only one seeder???


If it is not worth downloading for free, it's not worth buying.



You need to remote view torrents before you remove view amazon.




>
> in yawn inducing gruesome detail. As usual proof that there is a
> cover-up is FAR easier than proving what the cover-up is about. So we'll
> leave the question of the UFO occupants for lack of proof. But The fact
> that the cover-up has gone on for so long explains why the topic is
> "forbidden".
>
> And this leaves us with one final question: Should scientist believe in
> the existence of humanoid life somewhere in the universe (Note planet
> here includes those around ANY stars not just our own) The answer based
> upon probability alone has to be YES. Why? Because of the vast NUMBER of
> even galaxies let alone stars. No thinking scientist or even
> self-respecting atheist can DENY the enormously high probability that
> there are doubtless MANY other situations out there similar enough to or
> own as to make such an event as formation of similar life virtually
> beyond doubt! Only the ego of the Lib factions of humanity have the ego
> to think they they are so special, physics quit and broke the mold after
> they were formed. The probably of humanoid life on other planets, even
> humanoid life far more advanced than our own, is FAR more likely than
> the statistics supporting the idea that we "evolved" from lower animals,
> apes in particular.
>
> The bottom line is that other humanoid life in the universe is virtually
> beyond doubt to anyone with even a modest knowledge of science and math.
> It is clear that government and it's handmaiden the media, has been
> spoon feeding (and sometimes force feeding) the "bacteria story" to
> everyone as a cover-up of credible UFO phenomena being observed
> everywhere over a great many years. It's all as simple as this.
>
> I now turn you back to all the strategic writers (part of the cover-up)
> who will all scream "kook" and "insane" as if it were some kind of
> scientific proof of something. Note that like Starfaker, they are all
> "writers" and know nothing of science. Their main areas of expertise
> being lies and fantasy.



Point to one lie you believe I made? I mean just ...one. And just in case yous don't know the meaning of...one, it's half of two.







>
> --
> ___ ___ ___ ___
> /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
> /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
> /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
> /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
> /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
> \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
> \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
> \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
> \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
> \/__/ \/__/



and there is nothing to...cover-up.

[The Starmaker]

Attila < wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:04:37 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqpu6g$mgr$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
> >On 2015-08-16 04:08 PM, Attila < wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:51 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> >> alt.atheism with message-id <mqouen$fsa$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:

> >>
> >>> On 2015-08-15 10:43 PM, talishi wrote:
> >>>> niunian wrote:
> >>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote:
> >>>>>> niunian wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God
> >>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of
> >>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of
> >>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the
> >>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same
> >>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the
> >>>>>>> place of the previous creation God.
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> It turns out the previous creation God was manufactured as well.
> >>>>>> Humans have manufactured at least 5,000 of them.

> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up
> >>>>> your mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and
> >>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as
> >>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and
> >>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens".
> >>>

> >>> The Bible is a spiritual teaching that explains the philosophy of life.
> >>> If you are not interested in that, there is no point to talk about the
> >>> Bible at all. Go back to your science class and stay away from
> >>> philosophy, then you will not be bothered by what's in the Bible.
> >>
> >> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many
> >> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept
> >> it as true also.
> >>
> >> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your
> >> god-fearing neighbors.
> >
> >Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book?
>
> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame
> for anything.
>
> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether
> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same.



There was no Attila the Hun, was there...he's gay.

[Olrik]

«after all»? I never pretended to be one, you little troll.

> However...you need to stop with the "a écrit" bullshit, espèce de con.
> Tu n'ecris pas dans un forum francophone. Arrête avec ta connerie.

Why did you write your comment in French? Hypocrite much?

[The Starmaker]

You see what happens when you mix diffrent breeds of fishes in the same
tank...

[The Starmaker]

how do ants tell each other apart if they all look alike?

[Olrik]

Indeed! You've been eaten and spit out!

Good riddance, troll!

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 06:50 AM, Attila < wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:49:19 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqsjdi$7bt$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-17 05:56 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:52:33 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqri7d$uc4$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-16 09:58 PM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>> On 16/08/2015 12:53, niunian wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-08-16 01:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <mqke7a$vf2$9...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-13 09:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By definition, God rules the world of living, the devil rules the
>>>>>>>> world of death.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what definition is _that_?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the definition of God as the living God who gives life to all
>>>>>> living things. Without God, all living things will die, and the world of
>>>>>> living will cease to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> <looks around>
>>>>>
>>>>> No god, and everything is still here...
>>>>

>>>> The God of living is from within, not without. So stop looking around,
>>>> there is nothing you can see with your eyes or hear with your ears. It's
>>>> called a realization from the within.
>>>

>>> It sounds like ambiguous poppycock to me.
>>
>> Why? Is it because no one ever told you that the spiritual world was
>>from the within?
>
> I have yet to see any evidence any 'spiritual world' ever existed.

I'm afraid your physical eyes can not see the spiritual world the same
way your physical science can not prove or disprove philosophy. The
spiritual existence is beyond the ability of your physical eyes.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 07:25 AM, Attila < wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:12:46 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqsjdk$7c0$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-17 05:55 PM, Attila < wrote:

>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:53:17 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqpth7$jil$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-16 01:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>> In article <mqke7a$vf2$9...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-08-13 09:26 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>>>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By definition, God rules the world of living, the devil rules the
>>>>>> world of death.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what definition is _that_?
>>>>
>>>> It's the definition of God as the living God who gives life to all
>>>> living things.
>>>

>>> But where is this definition found?
>>
>> The Bible in Genesis.
>
> That source, being unverified, is rejected as being useless as well as
> valueless.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Without God, all living things will die, and the world of
>>>> living will cease to exist.
>>>

>>> What evidence do you have that any god ever existed? Please use
>>> verified sources only, and no vague ambiguities.
>>
>> The issue of God's existence is a personal one.
>
> Then that 'god' can have no effect on the real world because if it
> could everyone would be aware of it.
>
>> I can't give you my
>> experience of God.
>
> I didn't ask for it, and I really am not interested in it.
>
>> You have to have your own experience to truly
>> understand the meaning of God. I can only show you where you can find
>> your own God. He is within you as the center of your life. You live your
>> life for him, and he rewards you with happiness and love in life.
>
> No thanks. Not interested in mythology.
>
>>
>> Once again, this isn't your elementary science education, so stop asking
>> for the "evidence" of God like a total idiot. Can you give me ten pounds
>> of love and three ounces of wisdom?
>
> Nope. Nether of those actually exist.

Yet, do you deny that love and wisdom actually exist also?

>
>> If not, there is no such thing as
>> the evidence of God either. The entire universe is God's manifestation.
>> You can not claim one part of the universe is God's evidence but the
>> other part is not.
>>
>
> So a god can affect the universe as much as an emotion or any other
> emotion can. But no more.
>
> Interesting. But not very.

You forget to mention the word wisdom.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 07:27 AM, Attila < wrote:

>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about
>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested?
>>
>
> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from
> the distant past.

Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and
the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone?

[niunian]

Not really, the suffering in people's mind can only exist when there is
an image of self in their mind which dominates their life. When a person
stops living for that empty image and starts living for the spirit of
God within him/her, suffering in their mind will be taken away by God.
There will be no self pity or the feeling of personal failure and injury
anymore. There will only be a simple acceptance of life and the desire
to make the best of it whenever and however possible.

[niunian]

Not really. Nothing even close to your imaginations.

[The Starmaker]

that is no way for a food inspector to talk.

tell me, what is the longest period of time meat is kept refridgerated
before it reaches comsumers? 5 years, ten years, twenty years?

[The Starmaker]

Attila < wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:23:35 -0700, The Starmaker

> <star...@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <55D2C1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many
> >> >> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept
> >> >> it as true also.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your
> >> >> god-fearing neighbors.
> >> >
> >> >Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book?
> >>
> >> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame
> >> for anything.
> >>
> >> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether
> >> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same.
> >
> >
> >
> >There was no Attila the Hun, was there...he's gay.
>

> The existence of Attila the Hun is verified by a number of historical
> accounts written by different people from different points of view and
> with no particular agenda to present or support.

But you wrote:

"Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether

it contains any truth or not,.."


So how do you know what accounts written by different people about
Attila the Hun is true or not?

Or Jesus Christ?

[Alex W.]

On 17/08/2015 17:34, kefischer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:39:52 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>> On 17/08/2015 04:11, niunian wrote nonsense:
>
>
> More nonsense about nothingness cross-posted
> indiscriminately.
>

If you let me know the newsgroup you are posting from, I'll happily
remove it.

[nature bats last]

.> > Are you speaking from personal experience with extreme
.> > and omnipresent pain?

.> Not really.

And yet you feel qualified to tell us what the
inner lives of those afflicted with intractable
pain is like.


You might want to reflect on that.

> Nothing even close to your imaginations.

Thankfully, I cannot begin to imagine what it
must be like for those with the very real
syndromes I listed.


Seth

[nature bats last]

.> > There are few things that cause "suffering in their mind" more than
.> > perpetual severe pain. Why did you say something so incredibly stupid?

.> Not really, the suffering in people's mind can only exist when there is
.> an image of self in their mind which dominates their life. When a person
.> stops living for that empty image and starts living for the spirit of
.> God within him/her, suffering in their mind will be taken away by God.
.> There will be no self pity or the feeling of personal failure and injury
.> anymore. There will only be a simple acceptance of life and the desire
.> to make the best of it whenever and however possible.

And the suffering of the body continues.

I would suggest that it would take nothing more elaborate
than a thumbscrew to cause you to reconsider your insouciant
attitude towards physical pain.


Seth

[The Starmaker]

Attila < wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker

> <star...@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true.
>
> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet?


'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'



Here is what the earth looks like:
https://simpleprocesses.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1499.jpg



Isn't there just one Atilla the Hun?

[duke]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:

>On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>
>If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
>there's no need to replace God as that creator.

Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 05:38:01 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:16:35 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> in
>alt.atheism with message-id
><abo1ta11n4b89k4fj...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 05:23:56 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:48:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> in
>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>><60qesahdgkne3pj95...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 05:00:54 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:20:36 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> in
>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>><t2icsahjjj28phbls...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:35:06 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:53:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> in
>>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>><h6aasahjll2s2ogo6...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 05:07:40 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 14:00:34 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> in
>>>>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>><99n4sap89chr4ckc8...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You have never ever given me anything except to occasionally babble
>>>>>>>>>>>"everything', which is hardly a rational answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You are saturated out. You can't grasp any more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>But I stopped expecting rational answers or comments from you long
>>>>>>>>>>>ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Much like the one above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I win, you lose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is a contest of come kind involved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just showing you how much of a minority you are in.
>>>>
>>>>>According to you it doesn't matter. And it really doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>You don't have a lot of support.
>>>>
>>>More than you would ever admit.
>>>
>>>And more every year as education replaces superstition.

>>
>>And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>
>

>I don't need any since I have never any god was ever replaced by
>anything. I have repeatedly requested evidence to support the
>position that any god ever existed but all I ever get is ambiguities
>and unsupported opinions.

Your closed mind won't allow you to accept reality.
>
>I expect no better.

[nature bats last]

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
>
> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
> >
> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>

.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.

Why? And be explicit:





Seth

[Mike M]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>
>> If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
>> there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>
> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>

So who was the creator of your God?

--
So much universe, and so little time. - Sir Terry Pratchett

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:21:34 -0700, The Starmaker

Actually nasa says it everyday. Every freakin day they run a test on
curiousioty to test for life on mars, You fucking moron

[The Starmaker]

Mike M wrote:
>
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
> >>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
> >>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
> >>
> >> If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
> >> there's no need to replace God as that creator.
> >
> > Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
> >
>
> So who was the creator of your God?

God's mother!


http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/mary.holy.mother.of.god.jpg

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
<seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.

He's been brainwashed into stupidity as well as rudeness towards and
obsession about atheists,

He knows atheists aren't Christians but refuses to admit this,

>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>
>Why? And be explicit:

Liarboi Weber, aka Fatso the Beached Whale, knows this is false
because he and pretty well every other in-your-face religious loon who
has come here have all been given examples from Quantum Mechanics.

Because he knows it is false, that makes him an in-your-face liar
about this and most of the rest of his nonsense..

Since the 1990s.

[Doug Freyburger]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I don't know too much about the history of atheism....when was it
> invented?

Had we been born jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and so on and not
believe in the existence of the beings described in the stories of our
heritage, none would really care. Nearly every religion long ago
reached peace at having plenty of non-believers among their members.

As such atheism is a practice restricted to regions where Christianity
and/or islam are practiced. Elsewhere there isn't any need.

So it was invented at some point after those religions decided on an
unique innovation that belief in the existence of the beings or the
stories of their heritage is a requirement. No requirement, no need for
atheism. Yes requirement, need for a description of those who violate
that requirement.

The subject line "Atheism is baced on beliefs, not science" is a true
statement but not for the reason the OP almost certainty meant.

Atheism is based on a specific disbelief that is insisted on by a couple
of religions but not required by most other religions. Atheism is based
on a requirement of belief by a couple of religions but not a
requirement by most other religions.

Does atheism use science? Yes. But that's not what atheism is based
upon. Atheism is based on resistence to a specific requirement by a
specific pair of religions. A specific pair of religions that chose to
oppose science, unlike nearly all others. Ssience naturally became a
tool of atheists for that reason.

[Doug Freyburger]

niunian wrote:
>
> The definition of God as the living source and energy of all living things.

Occam's Razor violation by adding an unnecessary and unsupported
function to deities.

Gods are spirits detected by that small percentage of the population who
have direct personal observation of the spirits of the world. The
majority has always had no direct personal observation of the spirits if
the world so some take their existence on faith others disbelieve.

God as a singluar being is a second Occam's razor violation. Across
history and prehistory many mystics have reproted and continue to report
direct personal observation of the spirits of the world. Some report
observation of deity. Some report deity is one. Some report deities
are many. Those who report deity is one disagree on the personalities
of deity. One Occam's Razor approach is to not multiply deities so
deity is many and some mystics only met one of them. One Occam's Razor
approach is to keep it simple and say billions of well adjusted and
sincere citizens were deluded.

[Doug Freyburger]

duke wrote:
>
> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.

Until the invention of the microscope and the phrasing of the germ
theory, the fermentation of wine was the proof of divine intervention.
Wine has one miracle.

Until the invention of X-ray crystalography and the phrasing of the
lock and key theory of enzyme action, the malting of starch into sugar
was proof of divone intervention. Ale has two miracles. We all have to
believe in something. I believe I'll have an ale.

Aristole thought life emerged spontaneously from non-living material.
It has since been discovered that every example he knew of was from
eggs, seeds and spores.

In the Volspa Odin and a pair of brothers condensed the solar nebula
to form the world, and the world is a living being. Anyone who has dug
in a garden has seen first had that the soil is a living thing. This
shows that stories lose meaning when viewed literally but do have value
when viewed allegorically.

In the Volspa Odin and a pair of brothers engineered humanity from
existing materials. This is both the source of the intelligent designer
idea and another demonstration that stories lose meaning when viewed
literally but do have value when viewed allegorically.

I am okay with science not yet being able to explain something from
nothing without reference to a creator. Maybe not ever explained by
science. Your not being secure with that suggests you lack serenity.

[Doug Freyburger]

niunian wrote:

> Attila wrote:
>
>> I have yet to see any evidence any 'spiritual world' ever existed.

As far back as can be found, a small percentage of the population has
had direct personal observation of the spirits of the world. As far
back as can be found, a large percentage of the poulation has no direct

observation of the spirits of the world.

So there's no surprise that any one individual does not detect them.

> I'm afraid your physical eyes can not see the spiritual world the same
> way your physical science can not prove or disprove philosophy. The
> spiritual existence is beyond the ability of your physical eyes.

Yet no instrument has ever detected the spirits of the world, either.
As such that direct personal observation does not constitute "evidence".

Until some such instrument is invented, if ever, the matter of direct
personal observeration that is the starting point of all religion
remains outside of the realm of science. To the extent no one tries to
impose their observations on others - Ooops there for a small number of
very large population religions. To the extent no one claims that the
existence of their deity can be proved by science - Ooops there for one
specific very large population religion.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 03:24 PM, Attila < wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:00:51 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mque3s$1lg$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-18 06:48 AM, Attila < wrote:

>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:28:17 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqsju3$991$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of death can also be a purpose. It would be bowing down
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the god of death which by definition, is the devil.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Um, what definition is that?
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> -- wds
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By definition
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What definition?

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The definition of God as the living source and energy of all living things.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Just where can this definition be found? Please include supporting
>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Genesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, that source is rejected as being unverified. Everything it
>>>>> says should be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still waiting for a reference to a verified source, with
>>>>> supporting evidence.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, your request is denied. Philosophy doesn't need the
>>>> approval of the physical scientist. Take it or leave it. This has
>>>> nothing to do with your scientific research. This is to learn and
>>>> understand the philosophy of life.
>>>
>>> Sorry. I thought you were talking about realty and not unsupported
>>> speculative drivel. Forgive me for expecting something substantial
>>> from you.
>>
>> If philosophy is nothing but unsupported speculative drivel to you, then
>> I feel sorry too. In fact, from my philosophical point of view, what you
>> call reality is what I call illusion of the mind. That makes me even sadder.
>
> Bully for you. While philosophy has it's place in speculating about
> new ways of thinking in and of itself it is rather useless unless it
> is supported and verified by the real world.

Philosophy has no problem explaining the world, but its focus is not the
world. It explains life by focusing on the truth and reality which the
world is based on. Your so called real world can not support or verify
the truth because the existence of this real world relies on the truth
rather than the other way around.

>
> Go sleep on a freeway centerline and your illusion of the mind will
> probably insure you won't get up again.

The highway is an illusion. The body is an illusion. The perceived
"accident" in your mind is also nothing but an illusion. However, in the
mist all these illusions, there is something that should be not an
illusion. It's called life.

That's why the philosophy of life is an important issue, and why the
Bible is more important than any of the science books.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 03:26 PM, Attila < wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:33:08 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mqujaa$gfe$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>>>> It sounds like ambiguous poppycock to me.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Is it because no one ever told you that the spiritual world was
>>> >from the within?
>>>
>>> I have yet to see any evidence any 'spiritual world' ever existed.
>>
>> I'm afraid your physical eyes can not see the spiritual world the same
>> way your physical science can not prove or disprove philosophy. The
>> spiritual existence is beyond the ability of your physical eyes.
>

> As I said, I have yet to see any evidence any 'spiritual world' ever
> existed. That still holds true.

I'm afraid no one can force you to see what you don't want to see.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 03:28 PM, Attila < wrote:

> Outside of the individual mind involved, yes.

First of all, how do you define outside of the individual mind? where
would that be? Can you point me to the outside of the individual mind
with your individual mind?

Secondly, can you deny the importance of love and wisdom simply because
it's "within" your individual mind?

>
>>
>>>
>>>> If not, there is no such thing as
>>>> the evidence of God either. The entire universe is God's manifestation.
>>>> You can not claim one part of the universe is God's evidence but the
>>>> other part is not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So a god can affect the universe as much as an emotion or any other
>>> emotion can. But no more.
>>>
>>> Interesting. But not very.
>>
>> You forget to mention the word wisdom.
>>
>

> Nope. There are a lot of mental conditions I did not mention.

OK. Can you show me anything that is not a mental condition?

[niunian]

On 2015-08-18 03:34 PM, Attila < wrote:

> Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits
> while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true
> and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims.
>
> Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so
> improbable as to require a very high standard of support and
> verification. Yet it has none at all.

Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch
your attack. Why is that?

[niunian]

I believe you, but that does not mean I have to add suffering on top of
the physical pain to make my life miserable. You can make my body
miserable, but I'm not going to help you to make my life miserable too.

[niunian]

I'm not speaking for everybody. It's just my own opinion based on my own
experience which isn't qualified to be any kind of examples. Everybody
in their life has to deal with pain and suffering sometimes.

>
>
>
>> Nothing even close to your imaginations.
>
> Thankfully, I cannot begin to imagine what it
> must be like for those with the very real
> syndromes I listed.

It may not be easy to remove the pain in their body, but it is possible
to remove the suffering in their mind if they are willing.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-19 06:51 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> niunian wrote:
>> Attila wrote:
>>
>>> I have yet to see any evidence any 'spiritual world' ever existed.
>
> As far back as can be found, a small percentage of the population has
> had direct personal observation of the spirits of the world.

It's not called "observation". It's better called as "understanding". It
is not possible to "observe" the spiritual world.

As far
> back as can be found, a large percentage of the poulation has no direct
> observation of the spirits of the world.
>
> So there's no surprise that any one individual does not detect them.
>
>> I'm afraid your physical eyes can not see the spiritual world the same
>> way your physical science can not prove or disprove philosophy. The
>> spiritual existence is beyond the ability of your physical eyes.
>
> Yet no instrument has ever detected the spirits of the world, either.
> As such that direct personal observation does not constitute "evidence".
>
> Until some such instrument is invented,

No need to bother. It can not be done.

if ever, the matter of direct
> personal observeration that is the starting point of all religion
> remains outside of the realm of science. To the extent no one tries to
> impose their observations on others - Ooops there for a small number of
> very large population religions. To the extent no one claims that the
> existence of their deity can be proved by science - Ooops there for one
> specific very large population religion.

Your claim is flawed. Religion is a philosophy of life that is outside
science. Science can not prove or disprove philosophy. It is neither
capable, nor qualified to talk about philosophy.

[nature bats last]

.> It may not be easy to remove the pain in their body, but it is possible
.> to remove the suffering in their mind if they are willing.

A false duality.


Seth

[nature bats last]

.>. > I would suggest that it would take nothing more elaborate
.> > than a thumbscrew to cause you to reconsider your insouciant
.> > attitude towards physical pain.

.> I believe you, but that does not mean I have to add suffering on top of
.> the physical pain to make my life miserable. You can make my body
.> miserable, but I'm not going to help you to make my life miserable too.

I thought you were interested in the truth. A thumbscrew would
provide you with a simple, economical, and elegant way for
you to test for yourself whether your statement is correct.


Seth

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3e684d74-706b-491c...@googlegroups.com>,

nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
> > >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or
> > >> education that
> > >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
> > >
> > >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
> > >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
> >
>
> .> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>
> Why? And be explicit:

And also explain what something he thinks came from what nothing.

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mr0csj$k35$1...@dont-email.me>,

Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> niunian wrote:
> > Attila wrote:
> >
> >> I have yet to see any evidence any 'spiritual world' ever existed.
>
> As far back as can be found, a small percentage of the population has

> had direct personal observation of the spirits of the world. ]


What "spirits"? Do you have any evidence that any such thing exists?

And, no, visions indistinguishable from hallucinations are not evidence.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-19 06:30 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> niunian wrote:
>>
>> The definition of God as the living source and energy of all living things.
>
> Occam's Razor violation by adding an unnecessary and unsupported
> function to deities.

Occam's Razor doesn't apply. You haven't been able to understand the
issue here. The appearance of life doesn't explain everything about
life. Life demonstrates a nature that is intelligent. Such intelligent
nature hasn't been shown to exist independent of life. It can not be
taken for granted as a mere function of the physical matter. It is not.
It comes from God alone.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 9:30:23 PM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <mr0csj$k35$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > niunian wrote:
> > > Attila wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have yet to see any evidence any 'spiritual world' ever existed.
> >
> > As far back as can be found, a small percentage of the population has
> > had direct personal observation of the spirits of the world. ]
>
>
> What "spirits"? Do you have any evidence that any such thing exists?

...and "are they friendly spirits?"

[/Rocket J Squirrel]

> And, no, visions indistinguishable from hallucinations are not evidence.

Hear her! Hear her!

Kevin R

[The Starmaker]

Attila < wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker

> <star...@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <55D368...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Attila < wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker
> >> <star...@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> >> <55D28E...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Attila < wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker
> >> >> <star...@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> >> >> <55D042...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot
> >> >> of planets out there.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props.
> >>
> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true.
> >>
> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet?
> >
> >
> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
>

> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed.


What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source???
What does "unrelated source" mean, like an atheist??

[Alex W.]

Get married.
Find out all about a miserable life.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-19 04:33 PM, Attila < wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:45:13 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mr0hqo$2h7$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>>> If philosophy is nothing but unsupported speculative drivel to you, then
>>>> I feel sorry too. In fact, from my philosophical point of view, what you
>>>> call reality is what I call illusion of the mind. That makes me even sadder.
>>>
>>> Bully for you. While philosophy has it's place in speculating about
>>> new ways of thinking in and of itself it is rather useless unless it
>>> is supported and verified by the real world.
>>
>> Philosophy has no problem explaining the world, but its focus is not the
>> world. It explains life by focusing on the truth and reality which the
>> world is based on. Your so called real world can not support or verify
>> the truth because the existence of this real world relies on the truth
>> rather than the other way around.
>

> Your philosophy is useless if it doesn't benchmark back to the real
> world. It is nothing more than speculation.

As I said, philosophy has no problem explaining the world. You don't
like it. You want limit philosophy within your scientific understanding.
That's absurd.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Go sleep on a freeway centerline and your illusion of the mind will
>>> probably insure you won't get up again.
>>
>> The highway is an illusion. The body is an illusion. The perceived
>> "accident" in your mind is also nothing but an illusion. However, in the
>> mist all these illusions, there is something that should be not an
>> illusion. It's called life.
>

> Amusing. Insane, but amusing.
>
> Lie down on a freeway. The result will hardly be an illusion.

Actually that is exactly why it is called an illusion instead of a
hallucination. If you follow the rules of the physical world, you will
never be able to prove it wrong. Only by enquiring into the nature of
the mind, can you understand the origin and the nature of the physical
world.

>
>>
>> That's why the philosophy of life is an important issue, and why the
>> Bible is more important than any of the science books.
>

> I can conceive of nothing less important than an unverified book of
> speculation and myth.
>

That's why you are wrong. You don't even understand the Bible.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-19 04:35 PM, Attila < wrote:

> But history shows that isn't from a lack of trying. For most of
> history I would have long since been executed for heresy.

Irrelevant. Are you suggesting you are playing some kind of hero in here
by being wilfully blind?

[niunian]

On 2015-08-19 04:48 PM, Attila < wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:55:29 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mr0hqq$2h7$4...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>>>>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about
>>>>>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from
>>>>> the distant past.
>>>>
>>>> Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and
>>>> the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone?
>>>
>>> Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits
>>> while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true
>>> and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims.
>>>
>>> Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so
>>> improbable as to require a very high standard of support and
>>> verification. Yet it has none at all.
>>
>> Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch
>> your attack. Why is that?
>

> I have better things to do with my time than bother becoming an expert
> in a book that has no support or validation. Anything it could
> possibly say would be useless beyond it's entertainment value, which I
> rate as being zero.
>
> There are many books I ignore for the same reason - it is not possible
> to read and study everything. I limit myself to what I find useful
> and/or entertaining.
>
> I did not attack anything. I am simply pointing out how useless that
> particular book is.

How disappointing. As far as I know, many atheists in here are very well
learned Bible scholars and experts. They can point me to the most
important key Bible verses every time. Because of them, I don't even
bother reading the Bible anymore. Whenever there is a problem, they will
show me the verses, and I will explain it to pass their test. It works
for me perfectly. Save me both time and effort. Perhaps you should try
it my way. Make yourself a devoted God believer and be baptized by the
truth of the Bible verses through the usenet debates in alt.atheism.

:-)

[niunian]

Not really. A thumbscrew would only test my devotion to God to let me
know exactly how far I can go. Anything other than that is pointless.

[niunian]

That would be a miserable marriage instead of a miserable life. If one
is devoted to follow the God from the within, one can have a miserable
marriage without having a miserable life too.

[niunian]

No. A real challenge.

>
> Seth
>

[The Starmaker]

Attila < wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker

> <star...@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or
> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more
> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed.


So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? Can you give an example of
an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring.

[Pete K.]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:36:08 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
<barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:

>On 8/11/2015 8:14 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:06:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain.
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between
>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and
>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor
>>>> science.
>>>
>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong
>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any
>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a
>>> belief in a god.)
>>
>> I knew I shouldn't have replied.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> Is "not collecting stamps" a negative hobby on your planet?
>
>As I said in an earlier reply, I've heard that gag before. Just to show
>that I'm reasonable, I'll give it a little more serious consideration.
>
>There are a couple of problems with the gag. First of all, it's just
>snark. Secondly, it's stale - I've heard or read literally hundreds of
>militant atheists say it (proving that militant atheists are no less
>unoriginal than just about everyone else.) Finally, it's just an
>invalid analogy - it fails utterly.
>
>I should state at this time that I'm a non-militant "weak" atheist, not
>a theist or any other kind of holder of positive religious belief.
>However, I find this Christian's explanation of why the analogy fails to
>be eminently reasonable and persuasive, that is, right:
>http://citybibleforum.org/city/melbourne/blog/how-stamp-collecting-analogy-fails

It doesn't explain anything. It merely asserts that the analogy is
bad.

>This is always the problem for reasonable people like me dealing with
>unreasonable militant true-believers like you: you toss off a
>three-second bit of snark and think you have nuked the opposition, and
>then stand around admiring yourself in the mirror as all narcissists do
>(atheism is not narcissistic, but all militant atheists are
>narcissists.) Reasonable people like me are at a disadvantage in
>dealing with unreasonable snark-tossers like you, because it takes time
>and effort to develop the reasonable counter to your three-second one liner.
>
>>
>> Where did I do that, troll?
>>
>> <plonk>
>
>Ah! I see you've conceded defeat already. I suppose my demolition of
>your bit of snark won't be seen by the snark-tosser, then. Pity.

[Pete K.]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
<barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:

>On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote:

>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between
>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and
>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor
>>>>>> science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong
>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any
>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a
>>>>> belief in a god.)
>>>>>

>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no
>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they
>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out
>>>> of an awkward position.
>>>
>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong"
>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking
>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at
>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it.
>>>
>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly
>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who
>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting
>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat
>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based
>>> religion" bullshit.
>>>
>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not
>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such?
>
>Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a
>"strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid.
> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively
>believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure
>faith.
>
>For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
>as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
>about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those
>things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that
>are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't.
>
>The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is
>that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby.

Yeah, and not having a belief about gods doen't mean not having
belifes about *anything*. So what?
>
>
>> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and
>
>It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure.

[nature bats last]

.> Actually that is exactly why it is called an illusion instead of a
.> hallucination. If you follow the rules of the physical world, you will
.> never be able to prove it wrong. Only by enquiring into the nature of
.> the mind, can you understand the origin and the nature of the physical
.> world.

Nope. That old curmudgeon, Robinson Jeffers, was right that

"the ocean in the bone vault is only
The bone vault's ocean: out there is the ocean's;
The water is the water, the cliff is the rock,
come shocks and flashes of reality."

Following that up with, again correctly:

"The mind
Passes, the eye closes, the spirit is a passage;
The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself;
the heartbreaking beauty Will remain
when there is no heart to break for it."


Seth

[nature bats last]

.> > I thought you were interested in the truth. A thumbscrew would
.> > provide you with a simple, economical, and elegant way for
.> > you to test for yourself whether your statement is correct.

.> Not really. A thumbscrew would only test my devotion to God to let me
.> know exactly how far I can go. Anything other than that is pointless.

Hookay. Me, I'm not a fan of the "It's true because I
know it's true" school of thought. Insufficiently arrogant,
I suppose. I like to see my current take on things being
tested, and hopefully validated, by non-me things.


Seth

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:07:03 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Oi!

I like being married. I'm more civilized than I would be otherwise;
I've learned more social graces, discovered more things I wouldn't
have ordinarily considered, and I'm certainly going to live longer
than I would have if I were single.

I'll wager it's your consumption of things like haggis and headcheese
that render sane women out of bounds for you, ya mad bastid.

--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."

Epicurus

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>> >
>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>
>
>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>
>Why? And be explicit:

Creation takes a creator.

>Seth

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:33:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
><seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>

>WHAT FUCKING GOD?

>
>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>

>He's been brainwashed into stupidity as well as rudeness towards and
>obsession about atheists,
>
>He knows atheists aren't Christians but refuses to admit this,

Oh, I know. But why you do profess such a silly idea.

>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.

>>Why? And be explicit:

>Liarboi Weber, aka Fatso the Beached Whale, knows this is false
>because he and pretty well every other in-your-face religious loon who
>has come here have all been given examples from Quantum Mechanics.

Haahaahaa. Looking for one of those examples. Remember, "mechanics" is an
action, not a why, not from where. Heeheehee.

[duke]

On 18 Aug 2015 19:04:47 GMT, Mike M <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>>

>>> If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
>>> there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>

>> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>>
>

>So who was the creator of your God?

No man can ever know. Unless God reveals it, of course.

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:42:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>duke wrote:
>>
>> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>

>Until the invention of the microscope and the phrasing of the germ
>theory, the fermentation of wine was the proof of divine intervention.
>Wine has one miracle.
>
>Until the invention of X-ray crystalography and the phrasing of the
>lock and key theory of enzyme action, the malting of starch into sugar
>was proof of divone intervention. Ale has two miracles. We all have to
>believe in something. I believe I'll have an ale.

>Aristole thought life emerged spontaneously from non-living material.
>It has since been discovered that every example he knew of was from
>eggs, seeds and spores.
>
>In the Volspa Odin and a pair of brothers condensed the solar nebula
>to form the world, and the world is a living being. Anyone who has dug
>in a garden has seen first had that the soil is a living thing. This
>shows that stories lose meaning when viewed literally but do have value
>when viewed allegorically.
>
>In the Volspa Odin and a pair of brothers engineered humanity from
>existing materials. This is both the source of the intelligent designer
>idea and another demonstration that stories lose meaning when viewed
>literally but do have value when viewed allegorically.

>I am okay with science not yet being able to explain something from
>nothing without reference to a creator. Maybe not ever explained by
>science. Your not being secure with that suggests you lack serenity.

Well, when you can provide a better, or even an equal, explanation for the
existence of all things material and energy, something form nothing appearing in
nothingness, then you have no where to go.

[talishi]

Quantum mechanics involves spin. Duke has trouble with the concept of spin.