Why do atheists believe weird things?

[fasgnadh]

MarkA confessed to not understanding theists, or much else either:
> To an atheist, theists are a curious group.

To an agnostic atheists are just as weird and much more dangerous;


> Some of the things they believe in


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

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

# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
# Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
# Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
# Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
#
# On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
# <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#
# >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
#
# It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
# The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA

# Professor Dawkins replies. "It�s highly plausible that
# in the universe there are God-like creatures."
#
# He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks he�s gone around a
# religious bend. "It�s very important to understand that these Gods
# came into being by an explicable scientific progression of
# incremental evolution."'
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all

# From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,
alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
# Subject: Disapproving Creation:
# Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:23:40 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<b5430732-e52e-45b5...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
#
#
#> come worshiping at the altar of atheism


# It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
#
#
# "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
# of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
#
# "atheism counts as a religion, Dr Perkins said."
# The Age 29/1/2009


> would be instantly recognized as being absurd.

But much of their ideology is just as dangerous as
every atheist regime in history has shown it to be;

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest


> Look at some of the really, really stupid things

# From: "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<god...@fidemturbare.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.psychology
# Subject: Arguments refuted -- Re: The Word 'Atheism' Has Been
Re-defined by
# the New Atheists
# Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:22:58 -0800
# Message-ID: <20130129122258.fc4c...@fidemturbare.com>
#
#
# Every newborn is a "new atheist,"
#
# > our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
# > has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
#
# you are correct about your cat being born an atheist too
# (and I suspect that your cat probably hasn't abandoned atheism).



>
> Wow.

Yeah! Not a single atheist took the atheists who believe that the
ONLY qualification to be an atheist is the inability to form a rational
belief, or thought, to task... 8^o

Thus the atheists believe that babies, simians, the brain dead comatose
and lumps of Dog Shit are all de facto atheists! B^D

Priceless!

And because of stupidity like that, most people think the Dog Shit
is the intellectual ELITE of atheism!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA


> I'm always impressed by what a colossally STUPID idea it is in the first place.

Sure you are, but you're an atheist, and thus easily impressed by
what is really the most useless, ineffectual sub-branch of pointless
Nihilism.

And atheists simply cannot face the historical reality
that EVERY atheist state in history has been a totalitarian
tyranny, terrorising, torturing and killing over 80,000,000 people.. Far
more than ANY religion! 8^o

> Really?

One atheist admitted the death toll from atheist regimes could be as
high as 100,000,000;

# From: Kilmir <kil...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups:
alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.usenet.kooks
# Subject: Re: is religion really the answer? Not if the question is
# "What killed 60,000,000 in the last 100 years" - ATHEIST REGIMES DID
IT! 8^o
# Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
# Organization: http://groups.google.com
# Message-ID:
<042262dc-a546-4054...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
# Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
#
#
#
http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
#
# atheists have caused almost a whopping 100 million deaths throughout
# world history.

> That sounds OK to you?

It's possible, the data suggests the death toll could have been that
high, but I prefer to use the more conservative estimates of serious
historians.


> Next, how about having a small family build a wooden ship


Sounds like something the last of the failed atheist regimes, Nth Korea
would be challenged to achieve.. they, like every atheist state ever
to exist, are a catastrophic cluster fuck, so dysfunctional the UN can't
even place them on the Human Development Index, .. their people have to
EAT GRASS during the frequent famines to try and stay alive!!!

North Korea is such a twisted propaganda nightmare they INVENTED
a a fake state 'religion', Juche, so they could pretend 'See, we don't
ban ALL religion, we allow this fraud!" B^D

> It is such an obvious fable

Sure, but you still find the atheist stooges in USENET defending those
insane atheist fanatics from criticism! B^p


it's hard to see how even the most committed atheist could take it
seriously.
Unless, of course, his commitment is to a mental institution.

Which is EXACTLY what atheist regimes do to dissidents! 8^o



> Here's another good one:


# Subject: Atheist admits their murder of a 13 year old,
# claims it was because he was a 'Despot' - Where's the Proof?
# was Re: Atheist infanticide -
# "most horrific political crime of the 20th century"
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.politics.communism,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.religion,alt.politics.democrats,
# alt.politics.republicans
# Message-ID: <jcBKl.7665$y61...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 11:39:59 GMT

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

Bukakke was challenged for EVIDENCE supporting the claim that atheist
infanticide was justified because the child was 'a despot' and has
kept running EVER SINCE!

> there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

Of course not, it was just more atheist propaganda lies
in a futile attempt to disguise their brutal murder of an
annocent child.

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


> don't go asking a lot of foolish questions.

Oh I know the atheists will never admit the truth,
but I like to expose them for the liars and frauds they are.

And peoiple can see how they make themselves complicit
in the crimes against humanity committed by EVERY atheist
state in history! B^[

Why do atheists defend such evil and oppose all that is good;

# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John



# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.

> Another good one, of course, is the historicity of Jesus.

It's great to hear you admit it, after all he has had far more impact
on the world than all the atheists put together! B^D


> You'd think that a carpenter,
> traveling around the Middle East, performing miracles on
> a daily basis, would attract the attention of SOMEBODY

And so the4re must have been something extraordinary about him
to cause an expotential explosion of converts, including such
temporal powers as Rome, and such hard cases as the Vikings.

Clearly even the toughest, men who couldn't be co-erced, were
won over by a superior world-view, and poor old atheism has NEVER
achieved popular acceptance anywhere.. it has ALWAYS been IMPOSED
by atheist tyrants and ALWAYS FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY.

Clearly atheist correlates with tyranny, and religions, including gentle
Jesus, have inspired all the great and enduring civilisations;

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




> Right.
>
> Pick more if you like.

No need really, the evidence of athiest failure and the success of
theism is overwhelming.

All the free, open, progressive, scientifically literate, rights-based
secular democratic states have been built by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS
societies, no atheist state has ever achieved a decent democracy!!

> The list goes on.

# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
#
# "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
# by a government, typically by active suppression of
# religious freedom and practice."
# - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
# Characteristics and Consequences,
# David Kowalewski,
# Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,
#
#
# "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia�s Buddhist religion:
# monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
# Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
# other religious sentiments were often killed.
# ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
# and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
# and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
# starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
# prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
# instead of the family.
#
# About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
# were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot�s regime."
# - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
#
# The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg

#
# "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
# regarded by the regime as social parasites,
# were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
# Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
# destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
# Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
# rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
# or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
# were often killed.
#
# The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
# persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
# Phnom Penh was completely razed.
#
# The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
# regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
# Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
# - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm
#
# "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
# because of their religion."
#
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk158/CANDEMIELDA/44camboyano.jpg

#
#
# "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
# - Daniel Peris,
# "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
# Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
#
#
# "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist
# countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China,
# Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea,
# Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also
# promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.
# - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland.
# Wolak, Arthur J. p 104
#
# In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an
# intrinsic part of communist ideology.


> The only thing more bizarre
.....
> is their willingness to kill

> Human brains are curious, DANGEROUS, fallible things.

Actually it is the FAILURE of atheists to USE THEIRS which is the danger,
as EVERY atheist regime in history proves!

> I often wonder if they will be our salvation,

According to the atheist theory that babies, and any other entity
that can't formn a rational thought or belief, is an atheist,
our brains ARE our salvation, as over 98% of babies ABANDON ATHEISM
when they GROW UP, and develop a capacity for rational thought.

Bad luck for you atheists, eh?

> our eventual destruction.

seems likely!

B^D








--


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

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

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



- Dr Reza Aslan

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


---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest

http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg

[aaa]

fasgnadh wrote:

Atheism is the only logical position to take.
If you believe in a religion, you have so many to choose from, so it is a long shot to guess the correct religion.
If God actually existed and cared about humans, then there would be far fewer type of religion.

But if you must believe in a religion, how about giving this church ago?
http://www.venganza.org/

[JNugent]

I reckon it must be for a bet.

[fasgnadh]

atheist sockpuppte yaputya snips, runs from facts and lies:

> On 15/02/2013 6:34 PM, fasgnadh wrote:
>> MarkA confessed to not understanding theists, or much else either:
>>> To an atheist, theists are a curious group.
>>
>> To an agnostic atheists are just as weird and much more dangerous;

<lets see what the atheists don't want you to read - UNSNIP>

> Fasy claims he is a fence-sitter *agnostic*

Liar, I never claimed to be a fence sitter. Agnostics adopt the rational
position and that annorys fundie atheists AND fundie theists who can't
answer valid criticism.

All you do is snip the facts and run away from the uncomfortable truths
which you can't refute, you merely lie and slander the messenger:

> yet he only ever attack atheists.

Liar, I am on the record attacking fundamentalists, Crusaders,
witch burners, the Borgia Popes, paedophile priests, the church
authorities who protected them and, before you had ever heard of them,
the Taliban;

# Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:30:30 +1000
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com>
# Subject: Holdem.Down Admits Church Coverup of paedophiles
# will continue.. for FINANCIAL REASONS! B^p
# Re: Why dont the NSW police arrest the Pope?
# Message-ID: <487b1c85$0$13949$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>


------------

# Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:39:51 +1000
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com>
# Subject: Pell may reopen sex-abuse case
# WAS Re: Popes Sydney World Youth Day marred in sexual
# and political controversy
# Message-ID: <4875aeac$0$17510$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
#
# If a known paedophile is given protection and succor
# by the Church then they are accomplices!
#
# An organization which simply FORGIVES any sin, rather than
# opposing it, ignores Christ who turned over the tables of the
# moneylenders in the temple: "Blessed are those who Hunger and
# Thirst for Justice"
#
# Well, the Devil wears Prada and the Pope...?
#
# ... a suit of legal armour crafted by Jesuits?
#
# ...mostly surrounding his heart and protecting his wallet?
#
# ---------
#
# Mark 9:42
#
# "And whosoever shall offend one of these
# little ones that believe in me, it is better
# for him that a millstone were hanged about
# his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

So I CONDEMN EVIL COMMITTED BY THEISTS or ATHEISTS.. the QUESTION IS:

Why do lying atheist tools try to avoid the valid criticisms
of ATHEIST TYRANNIES by snipping all the facts they can't deal with and
simply LYING about me!?

> Weird, eh???

No, it's just typical of atheist PROPAGANDA, ..telling the Big Lie,
which has been a feature of atheism all through history.

I was opposing the Taliban before any of you were even
talking about them;

Lets see anything from ANY of you lying slanderers criticising the
Taliban before 9/11!

# Subject: Taliban epidemic faces Cholera epidemic
# Date: 1999/07/18
# Message-ID: <37909470...@my-deja.com>#1/1
#
# "Afghanistan's ruling Taliban government has made an
# urgent plea to the international community for medical
# supplies to help fight a large-scale outbreak of cholera."
# - [The Age 5/7/99]
#
# This a government where an extreme fundamentalism has decreed
# that females may not be educated in public institutes.
#
# And because they may not be educated, they cannot become doctors.
#
# And of course, no woman could be allowed to attend a male doctor...!
#
# This is not Islam!
#
# This is patriarchal political madness dressed up in the
# terminology of religion.


Lets see any of the current crop of Climb-on-the-bandwagon
Islamophobes and bigots who were providing accurate critical
assessments of Taliban shitpigs in Usenet as early as I was.

>>
>>> Next, how about having a small family build a wooden ship
>>
>>
>> Sounds like something the last of the failed atheist regimes, Nth Korea
>> would be challenged to achieve.. they, like every atheist state ever
>> to exist, are a catastrophic cluster fuck, so dysfunctional the UN can't
>> even place them on the Human Development Index, .. their people have to
>> EAT GRASS during the frequent famines to try and stay alive!!!
>>
>> North Korea is such a twisted propaganda nightmare they INVENTED
>> a a fake state 'religion', Juche, so they could pretend 'See, we don't
>> ban ALL religion, we allow this fraud!" B^D
>>
>>> It is such an obvious fable
>>
>> Sure, but you still find the atheist stooges in USENET defending those
>> insane atheist fanatics from criticism! B^p
>>
>>
>> it's hard to see how even the most committed atheist could take it
>> seriously.
>> Unless, of course, his commitment is to a mental institution.
>>
>> Which is EXACTLY what atheist regimes do to dissidents! 8^o
>

> Why doesn't fasy ask instead


Notice how atheists who can't explain the terror torture and death
committed in the name of atheism ALWAYS want to CHANGE the subject! B^]


> You will find thousand of weird things in religions

But on balance, those religions also create schools, hospitals
and GREAT AND ENDURING CIVILISATIONS which more than balance the
negatives.. EVERY modern, free, open, progressive, secular state
has been built by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES like the USA, Canada,
Australia.. whereas ALL THAT ATHEIST STATES HAVE EVER PRODUCED IS
TERROR, TORTURE AND DEATH.. far more than ANY religion!

> fasy ignores that

No, clearly I can deal with the failings and accomplishments
of both religious and atheist societies, it's just that the EVIDENCE
shows the global civilisation built by religious societies is more
positive than the alternative, .. the atheist states which were ALL,
100% CLUSTER FUCKS.

You are the one who SNIPS and IGNORES the evidence. B^]


> Like what foods you can eat, what day to pray etc

Only you braindead atheist propagandists think that other people
share your insane concern about what others eat, or how they pray,
the MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies have evolved secular democracise which
ALLOW such FREEDOMS and RIGHTS (which clearly upset you atheist tyrants)
and EVERY atheist regime has OPPRESSED those freedoms and rights.

Q.E.D.

I like the majority of believers and non-believers alike REJECT the
ATHEIST TYRANTS who want to shove their beliefs down our throats and
force us to discuss ONLY what they want to talk about and not the TRUTH
which they cannot refute and RUN AWAY FROM:

>>> Here's another good one:
>>
>>
>> # Subject: Atheist admits their murder of a 13 year old,
>> # claims it was because he was a 'Despot' - Where's the Proof?
>> # was Re: Atheist infanticide -
>> # "most horrific political crime of the 20th century"
>> # From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.politics.communism,
>> # uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.religion,alt.politics.democrats,
>> # alt.politics.republicans
>> # Message-ID: <jcBKl.7665$y61...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> # Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 11:39:59 GMT
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8e03d6bb01bb35c5?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>>
>> Bukakke was challenged for EVIDENCE supporting the claim that atheist
>> infanticide was justified because the child was 'a despot' and has
>> kept running EVER SINCE!
>>
>>> there is not one shred of evidence to support it.
>>
>> Of course not, it was just more atheist propaganda lies
>> in a futile attempt to disguise their brutal murder of an
>> annocent child.
>>
>> Runaway chicken!
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0kPQiQufpE

And this

> things cause religious believers to kill each other.

Wow, that's your big News Flash? Humans kill humans.. well, Duh!

The point is, ATHEIST REGIMES have terrorised tortured and killed
over 80,000,000 people! FAR MORE THAN ANY RELIGION!!!

> Sunnis and Shiites kill each other every day

Not in Australia, or the USA, or Canada, or Indonesia or Europe.

ALL YOU PROPAGANDA TOOLS DO IS CHERRY PICK **ATYPICAL** DATA and
PRETEND TO YOURSELVES THAT IS SOMEHOW OUTWEIGHS THE FAR GREATER
DEATH TOLL CAUSED BY **YOU ATHEISTS**

B^D You are screwed by the simple FACTS of HISTORY, you stupid
atheist liar..

and that's why you snip EVERY PIECE OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE, present
NONE OF YOUR OWN, LIE and RUN AWAY FROM REALITY!

THAT is atheism, and THAT is why you are a catastrophic FAILURE! B^]


> So is fasy *really* an agnostic,

You really think that's what the thinking, ie non-atheist, reader wants
to know!? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

It wouldn't matter if I was a card carrying Rastafarian or as your other
bumber than dogshit atheist SpokesOrc, Olrik, claims, a closet atheist..
B^D
... the FACTS about atheist TYRANNIES would still remain!!!

> he can avoid answering questions about the absurditsy of
> religious belief and theism in general

I have no problem criticising the absurd elements of religion,
as the evidence above shows.. it is YOU ATHEISTS who snip and run from
*ANY* HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ATHEISM IN THE REAL WORLD.. because,
by comparison, it has been FAR WORSE than ANY RELIGION!

Look, dipshit, it is NOT about me, you can't kill the truth by shooting
the messenger, atheism is responsible for untold evil,
far worse than any religion!

I'm an agnostic, so you atheists are shown TRYING to LIE about me being
a theist, or even an atheist because YOU CAN'T REFUTE THE TRUTH, so you
are only left with attacking the messenger.. But anyone of the millions
of other agnostics, or the theists, or even the small number of atheists
who can think for themselves, are equally capable of putting the FACTS
which DESTROY atheism, to you.

I see more and more of my arguments picked up by the theists, and all
you atheists can do is snip and run.. hell, you have lost almost all of
your heavy hitters from USENET! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA

You even tried to revive a censored, atheist-only SHELTERED WORKSHOP
where you could post WITHOUT the nasty FACTS being put to you..

.. but, like EVERY atheist state.. IT FAILED!


> admit religions are mostly incompatible with each other

That's like saying "Admit Nations are incompatible with each other"
because in the past they had fights.

Sorry to tell you poor atheist dimwits, religions, like Nation States
EVOLVE.. and just as past wars encouraged humans to develop the
League of NAtions, and then The UN to mitigate conflict, the religions
have been in dialogue for the past coupe of centuries, and have
established a Parliament of World Religions where they TALK, not kill
each other.

Sure, nations still have wars, but less so, the period since WWII and
the UN have been REMARKABLY FREE of war, less people dying, less nations
involved.

So it is in religion. The Catholic Church and Islam have declared
they BOTH worship the same God, as do the Jews, Bahai, Sikhs, Protestant
denominations, Parsees.. etc!

In Australia, the USA, Canada, Europe, Indonesia, .. people of all
faiths and from all nations LIVE TOGETHER IN PEACE AND HARMONY! 8^)


So you atheists, who have NEVER achieved that sort of PEACEFUL,
PROGRESSIVE, TOLERANT, MULTI-FAITH, MULTI-ETHNIC, UNITY-IN-DIVERSITY,
RULE-OF-LAW, RIGHTS-BASED, FREE, OPEN, SECULAR DEMOCRACY just have to
keep on whining like little bitches and selectively looking ONLY at
the problems to try and convince yourself that the global civilisation
constructed by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS peoples is worse than your FAILED
ATHEIST SHITHOLE TYRANNIES!!!!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAA

Hey, you stupid dumbfuck atheist propagandist.. there is still
ONE atheist clusterfuck state which has not quite disintegrated
completely, YET, in Nth Korea.. why don't you put your money
and your life where your LYING MOUTH IS and fuck off to that last
Atheist Paradise.. where everyone is FORCED to think like you do!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA



> thus theism is seriously flawed logically.

So flawed you CHOOSE to live in a THEIST society rather than an atheist
STATE!


BTW What has theism, got to do with ANYTHING in this debate about the
follies of atheism!?

You atheists really can't fdefend your position, you can only shift
ground and try and change the subject.


> (bleatings about historical atheist state deaths

According to these atheist Holocaust deniers, we are not supposed
to talk about the 80,000,000 people terrorised tortured and killed
by ATHEIST regiems, .. they say that would be 'bleating', instead
they want you to look ONLY at the way people pray differently, standing
up or sitting won or kneeling.

That ultimately is the tragedy of the atheist states.. they tried to
CRUSH FREEDOM of thought and belief and impose THEIR beliefs on
EVERYONE... jsut as this atheist stooge wants to shut down the REAL
DEBATE about ATHEISM, and force us all to his tired old religion-bashing
SCRIPT!

It's over, atheism lost. The world is MORE religious because it's
a better way.

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

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

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



- Dr Reza Aslan

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

> if you you look at what is happening *NOW*

Atheist regimes have failed utterly in the 20th century, only Nth Korea
an atheist rogue terrorist regime, remains, and EVEN the atheist
hypocrites CHOOSE to live in the free open secular democracies built
by the GLOBAL MAJORITY RELIGIOUS!


Game Set Match Over for atheism!

> it is obvious that religious beliefs are causing far more deaths

Nope. Most of the wars are about the usual things, land, freedom,
money, independence, oil, resources.

The USA wasn't attacked by Islam, more Muslims HELPED
it defeat al Quida than joined al Quida, and more Mulsims
were killed by terrorists than Christians were.

Bush himself declared , and Obama re-iterated, we are not at war
with Islam. They couldn't win without Muslim countries.

When the Bali bombings occurred the Indonesian and Australian
governments worked together, caught the terrorists responsible
tried and executed them.. in Muslim Indonesia.

We now fund numerous moderate Madrassas, (Muslim Schools) which
means that the real Koran is taught, not the Wahabbism which Saudi
funded extremists were feeding to Indonesian poor who had no other
choice of schools!

We are not at war with ISlam, Islam is not at war with us.

Only the desperate, hate filled BIGOTS from either camp, supported
as you all can see by hate filled ATHEIST bigots, try to incite
hatred and violence along religious lines.. but they have already
FAILED! B^]

> in the world than the few *atheist* states.

You seriously want to compare a few thousand deaths caused
by a handful of atypical suicide bombers, with the 800,000,000
victims of atheist terror!?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA


Even SINCE the catastrophic collapse of most of those atheist
tyrannies, atheists are as well represented in global terrorism
as the Wahabbists:

# "In Lebanon in the 1980s, of 41 suicide attackers from
# Hezbollah 1982- 1986, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists.
# Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians,
# one of which was a Christian high school teacher with a B.A.
#
# If RELIGION is the critical factor, how come we have three
# Christian suicide bombers, and a majority of SECULAR suicide
# bombers?
#
# Clearly Islamic fundamentalism is not the root cause.
#
# Something else is."
#
# - "Dying To Win" Professor Robert Pape



"Mohammed Khan the ringleader of the London bombings of 7/7
declared clearly in his martyrdom video that his central
motive was "to punish Britain for atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other Muslim nations"

Hussein Osma, July 21 would-be bomber said in his interrogation;

'This was not about religion, this was about Iraq, we watched
videos of western military atrocities in Iraq'" - Pape, "Dying to Win"

Prof Robert Pape, a distinguished academic whose work has been
funded by the Pentagon, and whose views are so respected
by the US Military that he taught at Dartmouth and 'air power
strategy' at the USAF's School of Advanced Airpower Studies,
conducted the ONLY study of the MOTIVATION of suicide bombers,
and thus he doesn't GUESS like Bush did, he UNDERSTANDS
what THE BOMBERS say are their reasons!!!

"The evidence shows that the presence of American troops
is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism."

"A study by University of Chicago political scientist
Robert Pape of 462 suicide-terrorist attacks between
1980 and 2004 worldwide found the overwhelming reason
for the attacks was a clear political objective and
in more than 95 per cent of the cases the "central
objective" was the eviction of foreign troops.

"Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist
attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion,
suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20
attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the
first five months of 2005. Every year that the United
States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq,
suicide terrorism has doubled."

The Bush administration knows this, but avoids the truth;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

"Robert A. Pape is Professor of Political Science at the University of
Chicago specializing in international security affairs. His publications
include Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Random
House 2005); Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Cornell
1996), "Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work," International Security
(1997), "The Determinants of International Moral Action," International
Organization (1999); "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,"
American Political Science Review (2003); and "Soft Balancing against
the United States," International Security (2005). His commentary on
international security policy has appeared in The New York Times,
Washington Post, New Republic, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, as well as on Nightline, ABC News, CBS
News, CNN, Fox News, and National Public Radio. Before coming to Chicago
in 1999, he taught international relations at Dartmouth College for five
years and air power strategy for the USAF's School of Advanced Airpower
Studies for three years. He received his Ph. D. from the University of
Chicago in 1988 and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from
the University of Pittsburgh in 1982. His current work focuses on the
causes of suicide terrorism and the politics of unipolarity."

http://political-science.uchicago.edu/faculty/pape.html

"Robert Pape graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the
University of Pittsburgh in 1982 and earned his Ph.D. from the
University of Chicago in 1988. During his Ph.D. program he was a TA for
a class taught by John Mearsheimer. He taught international relations at
Dartmouth College from 1991 to 1996 and air power strategy at the United
States Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies from 1996 to
1999. Since 1999 he has taught at the University of Chicago, where he is
Associate Professor of Political Science. He defines the focus of his
current work as "the effect of technological change on conflict and
cooperation among major powers and the theory and practice of suicide
terrorism."

After presenting preliminary data on his research into suicide terrorism
in the American Political Science Review in 2003, Pape founded the
Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, which he directs. The project is
funded by the Carnegie Corporation, the Pentagon's Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, the University of Chicago, and the Argonne National
Laboratory." - wikipedia

So, who would any sane intelligent person believe, Prof Robert Pape,
or pro Bush tools and clueless atheist Islamophobes who think Iraq made
sense? B^D

"atheists should stop living in the past and look at the real world
today."

[Olrik]

Poor «fasgnadh», it still does not admit being an atheist.

[fasgnadh]

Yap wrote:

> On Feb 15, 1:34 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> To an atheist, theists are a curious group.

Atheists, having nothing of importance or use to do, are constantly
OBSESSING about the beliefs(which they simply do not understand, and
thus misrepresent) of others.. because they simply cannot face the
REALITY of the HORRORS which ATHEIST **ACTIONS** have caused.

It is easy to misrepresent and then bay about 'BELIEFS' because it
is not based upon knowledge, but on simple-minded atheist stereotypes;

for example, the VAST MAJORITY of religious believe in Evolution,
it's taught in all the mainstream Catholic, Protestant, Jewish
and Muslim schools in Australia, Europe, Canada.. et al

But because there are a minority of Creationists, the atheists(fooling
no-one but other weak minded atheists) pretend that minority view is
typical.. and then they endlessly beat up on their own strawman stereotype!

They do this because a debate about 'Beliefs', something that exists
in the MINDS of over 60% of the planets adult population, and is thus
easy to misrepresent by atheists, is endless, self-righteous
posturing by atheists, and far more pleasant than confronting the
UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS: that EVERY atheist state has been a toralitarian
tyranny, killing over 80,000,000 people, far more than any religion,
and EVERY free, open, progressive, scientifically advanced, pluralist,
tolerant secular democracy has been built by a majority religious society!

>> Some of the things they believe in,
>> if stripped of their theological implications, would be

>> instantly recognized as being absurd.

Even if so, MOST of the things they believe in have proven to be so
efficacious in BUILDING CIVILISATIONS that theirs are the only
ones in existance, and so little in atheism has proven useful at all
that not even a single atheist democracy has ever been achieved! 8^o

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

Clearly the idea of atheists mocking the far more successful theists
is more absurd that ANY religious belief!!! B^D

Here's the question which reveals the utter stupidity of EVERY atheist
posturing and pontificating in this thread;

If you claim all you see in religion is ABSURDITY then how much more
absurd is it for you to waste your time dealing in NOTHING BUT ABSURDITY!?

Clearly, what OTHERS see in it, but which you admit you cannot grasp,
is the difference between THEIR success in building Great and enduring
civilisations, including the secular democracies which ONLY evolved in
MAJORITY THEIST societies, and your FAILURE to produce ANY SOCIETY of
lasting value, not even a single atheist democracy.. just a series of
COMPLETE CLUSTERFUCK and CATASTROPHICALLY FAILED atheist regimes which
in a mere 7 decades killed more people than ANY religion in history!

What is more 'absurd', the way people choose to pray, or the way
atheists are incapable of seeing the utter failure of atheism to
create any of the benefits which majority religious societies have achieved?


>> The Flood.
...
>> Really? That sounds OK to you?
>
> It certainly sounds OK


Who else but you atheist morons really cares about the BELIEFS of others
when it is ACTIONS which reveal religion has been repeatedly FREELY
CHOSEN by increasingly civilised societies and ATHEISM which failed
utterly when EVERY atheist state was a deadly totalitarian tyranny!!?

Religion is clearly MORE than you are capable of grasping,
otherwise THEY would have produced the atheist holocausts
and YOU would have produced civilisations!

Get over yourselves, and stop worrying about those who have
produced LESS terror torture and death than atheist states have!


--

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

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

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



- Dr Reza Aslan

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

---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



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

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

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”

[fasgnadh]

atheist Don Martin shares the beliefs which have made atheism redundant:
>
> Had a great number of Israelites wandered the desert for 40 years,
> they would have dropped an even greater number of turds along the way.
> Given the climatic conditions of deserts, a significant proportion of
> those turds would have become coprolites. To a coprolite, a couple of
> hundred years makes very little difference. Neither do those
> centuries make any difference to the absence of coprolites.

According to the atheist belief that babies (and cats) are atheist
(because they lack the rational capacity to form a thought or belief)
that would mean that there were more atheists in the Holy Land than
Israelites.

Perhaps that would be a good reason for a Flood,
to FLUSH the atheists away!

B^D


> Where is your evidence?

# From: "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<god...@fidemturbare.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.psychology
# Subject: Arguments refuted -- Re: The Word 'Atheism' Has Been
Re-defined by
# the New Atheists
# Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:22:58 -0800
# Message-ID: <20130129122258.fc4c...@fidemturbare.com>
#
#
# Every newborn is a "new atheist,"

...

# > our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
# > has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

# you are correct about your cat being born an atheist too

Atheists claim lumps of Shit meet ALL intellectual requirements to be an
atheist! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA

# (and I suspect that your cat probably hasn't abandoned atheism).

But, as the MAJORITY of adults who GROW UP and develop the capacity
to THINK rationally abandon atheism, the only reason cats, dog shit
and all OTHER ATHEISTS remain atheist is because they CAN'T THINK!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA


I started the laughter and mockery of this Joke, called "dog-shit
atheism", in 2009!; B^D

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/msg/08da346f88cf480b?hl=en&dmode=source

# Subject: Atheists such a desperately TINY minority, they claim Babies,
Monkeys,
# Cows, Rocks and Trees are Atheists! BWAAHAAHAHA!
# Message-ID: <hDFcl.12231$cu....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:53:12 +1100
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: talk.atheism,alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,
# alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc,
# aus.politics,alt.religion.christians
#
# mark is ashamed of his atheist views, so he turns archiving off:
# > X-No-Archive: yes
# > "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
# >>Pink Freud tap danced:
# >>>Bob Young Wrote
# >>>>Pink Freud gibbered"
# >>>>>Duke wrote
# >>>>>>Pink Freud blathered:
# >>>>>>
# >>>>>>> All newborn babies are atheists, dolt.
#
# Incredible, Atheists know they are such a tiny, ignored,
# irrelevant and ineffectual minority that they have to claim
# BABIES as members, to boost their numbers!
#
# What next.. you will claim other primates? ..the rocks and trees????
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA
#
# Face it, that would TRIPLE the average IQ of Atheism!!!!!!!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAA
#
# >>>>>> No, they're not. Atheists deny the existence of God.
# >>>>>> The infant mind has no concept of God.
# >>>>>
# >>>>> Your definition is wrong. As are you.
# >>>>
# >>>> I have to agree with Dook, much as it goes against the grain.
# >>>> Newborns are innocent.
#
# First sensible thing I have ever heard an atheist in alt.atheism say!
#
# >>> Innocent or not, the answer to the question "Do newborn children
believe
# >>> in god(s)?" is "No".
#
# "Do Monkeys and Cows believe in god(s)?" NO
#
# "Do Rocks and Trees believe in god(s)?" NO
#
# "Do LUMPS OF SHIT believe in god(s)?" NO
#
# > Therefore, they are atheists.
#
# Brilliant Logic!
#
# We can see why you atheists, being such ENORMOUS INTELLECTS,
# run the world!
#
# >>
# >> The question you propose asking them is impossible, they cannot
talk let
# >> alone underestand what is meant by a god.
#
# if the Atheists want to claim lumps of shit
# meet all the intellectual requirements to be considered Atheists,
# we should respect their honest assessment of what it takes to be one!
#
# > Bob, dook will be laughing behind our backs as we discuss minutae and
# > pedantics giving an impression of dischord...
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHHAA
#
# People ARE laughing at you desperate cretins! B^D
#
# You are such a tiny, irrelevant, ineffectual minority that
# you are trying to claim BABIES as atheists to boost your numbers!
#
#
# > To concede this pedantic point is dangerous, in my view.
#
# Yes, never let reality or reason get in the Way of Party Membership,
# Comrade!
#
# draft all the infants, mindless vegetables, other primates,
# bovines, and fossils and turds because lets face it.. they would
# be the BEST you have! B^D


> BAAWA

Boring Atheist Arseholes Wanking Away

[fasgnadh]

On 16/02/2013 4:19 PM, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2013-02-15 17:29, DVH a écrit :

>> On 15/02/2013 22:14, aaa wrote:
>>>
>>> Atheism is the only logical position to take.
>>

>> ROTFL.

It is pretty funny, especially when atheists claim
baqbies cats and even dog shit are atheists BECAUSE they
COMPLETELY LACK LOGIC and can't form a rational thought or belief!

# From: "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<god...@fidemturbare.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.psychology
# Subject: Arguments refuted -- Re: The Word 'Atheism' Has Been
Re-defined by
# the New Atheists
# Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:22:58 -0800
# Message-ID: <20130129122258.fc4c...@fidemturbare.com>
#
#
# Every newborn is a "new atheist,"
#
# > our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
# > has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
#
# you are correct about your cat being born an atheist too

Atheists claim lumps of Shit meet ALL intellectual requirements to be an
atheist! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA

# (and I suspect that your cat probably hasn't abandoned atheism).

Whereas the majority of humans GWO UP and become believers, rejecting
atheism once they are capable of RATIONAL THOUGHT AND BELIEF!

So the only remaining atheists are the ones who REMAIN as DUMB AS DOG
SHIT.. according to the atheists themselves!

TALK ABOUT WEIRD BELIEFS! B^D

> "ROTFL"

Even the atheists laugh at the stupidity of their beliefs! B^D


Take this one for example:

# It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
#
#
# "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
# of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
#
# "atheism counts as a religion, Dr Perkins said."
# The Age 29/1/2009

Dawkins provided the theology:

# humans have evolved into something like bolts of
# superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.
#
# Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?
#
# Professor Dawkins replies. "It’s highly plausible that

# in the universe there are God-like creatures."

> he's right.


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA

#
# "It’s very important to understand that these Gods

# came into being by an explicable scientific progression of

# incremental evolution." - Pope Dawkins B^D

How come athesit Gods evolved but dumb-as-dog-shit atheists DIDN'T!?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA

> Humans invented so many «gods»,

But only Dumb-as-Dog-shit atheists claim to have EVOLVED SOME!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA


> it's not even funny.

Oh come on your poor humourless atheist sad-sack, It's HILARIOUS! B^D

Bukakke even built an Altar of Atheism for the worship of atheist gods;

# From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,
alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
# Subject: Disapproving Creation:
# Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:23:40 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<b5430732-e52e-45b5...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
#
#

#> come worshiping at the altar of atheism,

--


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

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

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



- Dr Reza Aslan

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


---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



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

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

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”

[Olrik]

Le 2013-02-16 01:32, fasgnadh a écrit :

> It is pretty funny, especially when...

«fasgnadh», an atheist, can't find the courage to admit to it.

Quite sad, really.

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

[felix_unger]

On 16-February-2013 6:06 PM, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2013-02-16 01:32, fasgnadh a écrit :
>
>> It is pretty funny, especially when...
>
> «fasgnadh», an atheist,

I don't believe so

> can't find the courage to admit to it.
>
> Quite sad, really.
>


--

rgds,

Pete
-------
I was once arguing with an atheist who chastised me for not
adopting a position on the existence of God. I challenged him with..
"I'll take a position when you can tell me why I have to". He never replied.

[fasgnadh]

On 16/02/2013 6:06 PM, Olrik wrote:
> On 16/02/2013 5:32 PM, fasgnadh wrote:> On 16/02/2013 4:19 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2013-02-15 17:29, DVH a �crit :

>> # >>> believe in god(s)?" is "No".

>> #
>> # "Do Monkeys and Cows believe in god(s)?" NO
>> #
>> # "Do Rocks and Trees believe in god(s)?" NO
>> #
>> # "Do LUMPS OF SHIT believe in god(s)?" NO
>> #
>> # > Therefore, they are atheists.
>> #
>> # Brilliant Logic!
>> #
>> # We can see why you atheists, being such ENORMOUS INTELLECTS,
>> # run the world!
>> #
>> # >>
>> # >> The question you propose asking them is impossible, they cannot

>> # >> talk let alone underestand what is meant by a god.

>> # Doesn�t that description sound an awful lot like God?
>> #
>> # Professor Dawkins replies. "It�s highly plausible that

>> # in the universe there are God-like creatures."
>>
>>> he's right.
>>
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA
>>
>> #

>> # "It�s very important to understand that these Gods

>> # came into being by an explicable scientific progression of
>> # incremental evolution." - Pope Dawkins B^D
>>
>> How come athesit Gods evolved but dumb-as-dog-shit atheists DIDN'T!?
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
>>

>> > Humans invented so many �gods�,

>>
>> But only Dumb-as-Dog-shit atheists claim to have EVOLVED SOME!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
>>
>>
>> > it's not even funny.
>>
>> Oh come on your poor humourless atheist sad-sack, It's HILARIOUS! B^D
>>
>> Bukakke even built an Altar of Atheism for the worship of atheist gods;
>>
>> # From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,
>> alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
>> # Subject: Disapproving Creation:
>> # Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:23:40 -0800 (PST)
>> # Message-ID:
>> <b5430732-e52e-45b5...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>> #
>> #
>> #> come worshiping at the altar of atheism,
>

> Quite sad, really.

Sure, atheism is a desperately sad tragedy, as it's history and the
pathetic evasion of those facts by dumb-as-dog-shit atheists like Olrik
demonstrates:

Olrik claims he has a Divine Right to lie about you
if he doesn't know the truth (which is always):

# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.religion
# Subject: Re: fasgnadh is defective
# Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:31:59 -0400
# Message-ID: <huh7l5$tss$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# I can claim whatever I want. One day I say you're an atheist,
# then I claim you're a muslim.



# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.abortion,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: fasgnadh is an atheist
# Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:49:38 -0500
# Message-ID: <hd5m8q$91a$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# fasgnadh is an atheist.

# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.Islam,alt.politics.republicans
# Subject: Re: The new video from Pat Condell -- fasgnadh is a muslim
# Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 01:13:01 -0400
# Message-ID: <hufap5$ghh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# Oh look!
#
# It's fasgnadh, a.a.'s very own islamist!


# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion
# Subject: Re: Communist states - the Historical Reality
# Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 01:12:48 -0400
# Message-ID: <hucmco$5v5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# fasgnadh is still an atheist, and the poor thing still
# refuses to admit it.


# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.usenet.kooks
# Subject: Re: Atheist liars Syd Moron, China Glue and Olrik the
# Unworthy unable to show proof of a lie -
# demonstrates their absence of honesty... again! B^D
# Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
#Message-ID:<01b9d8cf-d902-4fea...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
#
# > Olrik joins the atheist liar tag team B^D :
#
# Fagsnag
#
# he's a closet theist.


# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:28:41 -0400
# Message-ID: <hp0b9v$ols$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# fasgnadh,why don't you once and for all admit that you're an atheist ?

Because, unlike you, I'm not a congenital liar, B^]

and besides, people are PAYING me to goad you into yet another
of your endless cycles of stupidity! B^D

And, because you are my little bitch, I'm MAKING A FORTUNE: B^D


# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
# Subject: Re: Olrik demonstrates that fasgnadh is an atheist...
# Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:56:07 -0500
# Message-ID: <kd5btj$cjd$1...@dont-email.me>
#
# By asking fasgnadh:
#
# �fasgnadh�, do you believe in God?

One atheist tried to warn Olrik the Unworthy
that he was making a fool of himself, but he's too
foolish to listen:

# From: raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.religion,
# alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.politics.communism
# Subject: Re: The Decline of alt atheism - and time to say farewell to
the most trivial and useless branch of Nihilism! B^D
# Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:26:06 -0400
# Message-ID: <n4ofb51jvj209trfh...@4ax.com>
#
# > Dear old "fasgnadh" asserts his deity exists, but can't prove it.
#
# Fasgnadh has never asserted that a deity exists, and recently admitted
# to being agnostic. He's not here to push a deity, he's here to push
# peoples buttons.

Olriks button requires hardly any effort:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9tsuLU0jfPU/S_vwUo7hMeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/RonfSYNOVbw/s1600/easy-button.jpg

--


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

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

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



- Dr Reza Aslan

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


---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



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

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

�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�

[fasgnadh]

On 16/02/2013 9:16 AM, aaa wrote:
> On 15/02/2013 6:34 PM, fasgnadh wrote:

> Atheism is the only logical position to take.

If you are a violent, hate filled atheist sociopath

>> the evidence of athiest failure and the success of
>> theism is overwhelming.
>>
>> All the free, open, progressive, scientifically literate, rights-based
>> secular democratic states have been built by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS
>> societies, no atheist state has ever achieved a decent democracy!!
>>
>>> The list goes on.
>

> If you believe in a religion, you have so many to choose from

If you believed in any of the atheist states, you had NO CHOICES,
the totalitarian atheist tyrants TOLD you what to think believe say and do;

> If God actually existed and cared about humans,

then all atyheist regimes would fail and only the majority religious
societies would evolve free, open, progressive secular democracies...

And guess what.. that's what happened!


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Aw Bullwinkle, Atheist states never work!

>>> The only thing more bizarre
>> .....
>>> is their willingness to kill
>>
>> > Human brains are curious, DANGEROUS, fallible things.
>>
>> Actually it is the FAILURE of atheists to USE THEIRS which is the danger,
>> as EVERY atheist regime in history proves!
>>
>>> I often wonder if they will be our salvation,
>>
>> According to the atheist theory that babies, and any other entity
>> that can't formn a rational thought or belief, is an atheist,
>> our brains ARE our salvation, as over 98% of babies ABANDON ATHEISM
>> when they GROW UP, and develop a capacity for rational thought.
>>
>> Bad luck for you atheists, eh?
>>
>>> our eventual destruction.
>>
>> seems likely!
>>
>> B^D

In atheist states

> you must believe in a religion,

one of the fake ones, created by the atheist state, like Juche in Nth Korea.

In the secular democracies created by religious societies, you are FREE
to choose!

> how about giving this church ago?

if you want to dedicate your life to pointlessness:

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

or this one, full of complete nutjobs who worship spaghetti and meatballs:

> http://www.venganza.org/

[fasgnadh]

On 16/02/2013 9:29 AM, DVH wrote:
> On 16/02/2013 9:16 AM, aaa wrote:
>> On 15/02/2013 6:34 PM, fasgnadh wrote:

> > Atheism is the only logical position to take.
>

> If you are a violent, hate filled atheist sociopath
>

>>> the evidence of athiest failure and the success of
>>> theism is overwhelming.
>>>
>>> All the free, open, progressive, scientifically literate, rights-based
>>> secular democratic states have been built by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS
>>> societies, no atheist state has ever achieved a decent democracy!!
>>>
>>>> The list goes on.
>>

>> If you believe in a religion, you have so many to choose from

If you lived in any of the atheist states, whether you BELIEVED in
them or not, you had NO CHOICES, the totalitarian atheist tyrants
TOLD you what to think, believe, say and do;

>> If God actually existed and cared about humans,

then all atyheist regimes would fail and only the majority religious
societies would evolve free, open, progressive secular democracies...

And guess what.. that's what happened!


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Aw Bullwinkle, Atheist states never work!

>>>> The only thing more bizarre
>>> .....
>>>> is their willingness to kill
>>>
>>> > Human brains are curious, DANGEROUS, fallible things.
>>>
>>> Actually it is the FAILURE of atheists to USE THEIRS which is the
>>> danger,
>>> as EVERY atheist regime in history proves!
>>>
>>>> I often wonder if they will be our salvation,
>>>
>>> According to the atheist theory that babies, and any other entity
>>> that can't formn a rational thought or belief, is an atheist,
>>> our brains ARE our salvation, as over 98% of babies ABANDON ATHEISM
>>> when they GROW UP, and develop a capacity for rational thought.
>>>
>>> Bad luck for you atheists, eh?
>>>
>>>> our eventual destruction.
>>>
>>> seems likely!
>>>
>>> B^D

In atheist states

>> you must believe in a religion,

one of the fake ones, created by the atheist state, like Juche in Nth
Korea.

In the secular democracies created by religious societies, you are FREE
to choose!

>> how about giving this church ago?

if you want to dedicate your life to pointlessness:

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

or this one, full of complete nutjobs who worship spaghetti and meatballs:

>> http://www.venganza.org/
>

> ROTFL.

Hilarious isn't it! B^D

Atheists really do belioeve in the weirdest shit!

[fasgnadh]

On 16/02/2013 6:39 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 16-February-2013 6:06 PM, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2013-02-16 01:32, fasgnadh a écrit :
>>
>>> It is pretty funny, especially when...
>>
>> «fasgnadh», an atheist,
>
> I don't believe so
>
>> can't find the courage to admit to it.
>>
>> Quite sad, really.

Olrik is a clear example of atheist 'values' - a Liar and a Hypocrite:


# Subject: Atheist Values - #1 Lies and #2 Hypocrisy
# Message-ID: <NxLTs.3584$1k5....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>
# Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:09:15 +1100
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.religion,
# alt.religion.christian,alt.agnosticism,alt.philosophy,
# uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.republicans,aus.politics

Olrik claims he has a Divine Right to lie about you

if he doesn't know the truth(which is always):

# fasgnadh is still an atheist, and the poor thing still refuses to

admit it.


# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.usenet.kooks
# Subject: Re: Atheist liars Syd Moron, China Glue and Olrik the
# Unworthy unable to show proof of a lie -
# demonstrates their absence of honesty... again! B^D
# Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
#Message-ID:<01b9d8cf-d902-4fea...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
#

# On 31 Mrz., 22:54, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
# > Olrik joins the atheist liar tag team B^D :
#
# Fagsnag
#
# he's a closet theist.


# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:28:41 -0400
# Message-ID: <hp0b9v$ols$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# fasgnadh,why don't you once and for all admit that you're an atheist ?

Because, unlike you I'm not a congenital liar, B^]

and besides, people are paying me to goad you into yet another

of your endless cycles of stupidity! B^D

And because you are my little bitch, I'm MAKING A FORTUNE: B^D

# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
# Subject: Re: Olrik demonstrates that fasgnadh is an atheist...
# Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:56:07 -0500
# Message-ID: <kd5btj$cjd$1...@dont-email.me>
#
# By asking fasgnadh:
#

# «fasgnadh», do you believe in God?
#
# Let's see how it goes.
#
# <snip relentless assault on bandwidth>

One atheist tried to warn Olrik the Unworthy
that he was making a fool of himself, but he's too
foolish to listen:

# From: raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.religion,
# alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.politics.communism
# Subject: Re: The Decline of alt atheism - and time to say farewell to
the most trivial and useless branch of Nihilism! B^D
# Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:26:06 -0400
# Message-ID: <n4ofb51jvj209trfh...@4ax.com>
#
# > Dear old "fasgnadh" asserts his deity exists, but can't prove it.
#
# Fasgnadh has never asserted that a deity exists, and recently admitted
# to being agnostic. He's not here to push a deity, he's here to push
# peoples buttons.

Olriks button requires hardly any effort: ;-)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9tsuLU0jfPU/S_vwUo7hMeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/RonfSYNOVbw/s1600/easy-button.jpg

[Olrik]

Stop the charade, fasgnadh. The only one you're fooling is yourself.

[felix_unger]

chuckle! chuckle! snort! :)

--
rgds,

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

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

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

http://www.facebook.com/SupportTonyAbbott

[fasgnadh]

On 16/02/2013 1:59 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:20:25 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:36:41 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Kelsey Bjarnason
>>> <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:34:47 -0500, MarkA wrote:
>>
>>>>> The Flood. Wow. There are so many reasons why the Genesis Flood story
>>>>> is impossible that it's hard to know where to start. I'm always

>>>>> impressed by what a colossally STUPID idea it is in the first place.
>

>>>>> The population of the world in 4,000 BC couldn't have been more than
>>>>> 10,000,000 people. He doesn't like the way they are turning out, so He
>>>>> kills every single living thing on the planet? Really? That sounds OK
>>>>> to you?
>>>
>>> according to the Bible.

According to atheist 'interpretation' (ie misunderstanding)
of the Book they cite as their EVIDENCE of God existing!

Priceless, IF atheists can use it as evidence to INDICT God,
then theists can use it as evidence of his existence.

>
>> EVIDENCE?

The atheists are using the Bible as evidence of acts they
hold God responsible for.

> That's how religion works.


Sure, the only difference is that atheists choose to believe
EVERY story they see as violent and hate filled, as befits their nature,
while theists look for the Good, and see it as inspirition to strive to
overcome and transform themselves.


> As ever, thanks


You are welcome, Brother.

[Budikka666]

Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
at all, shall we?

I'll wait.

Budikka

[fasgnadh]

Budikka666 snips and runs from the topic, AGAIN:
<unsnip>

<end unsnip>

Yes, Bukakke has done it again... snipped ALL THE FACTS demonstrating
the irrationalality and hypocrisy of the atheist position and then
attempts to CHANGE the subject, from atheism (which no atheist wants to
talk about) to theism, which they find more interesting!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA

It's called shifting ground, and reveals their intellectual dishonesty.

Bukakke has done this before when she claimed atheist terrorists had the
right to kill a 12 year old boy because he was, in the atheists view, a
'despot'. Challenged to provide evidence that this innocent victim of
atheist crimes against humanity was a despot, she ran, and is still
running, and still trying to change the subject to the one you see
atheists obsessing about here.. GOD! 8^o

And, as usual, atheists use the BIBLE they say they don't believe in as
EVIDENCE of THEIR (mis)interpretation of God, when they refuse to accept
it as evidence by theists for the existence of God.

Theisr hypocrisy is breathtaking! B^p

# Subject: Atheist admits their murder of a 13 year old,
# claims it was because he was a 'Despot' - Where's the Proof?
# was Re: Atheist infanticide -
# "most horrific political crime of the 20th century"
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.politics.communism,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.religion,alt.politics.democrats,
# alt.politics.republicans
# Message-ID: <jcBKl.7665$y61...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 11:39:59 GMT

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

THAT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO AND YOU ARE STILL RUNNING!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA


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

> Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?

1. Because the last time you challenged me to a debate you were exposed
defending infanticide by atheist terrorist states and RAN AWAY from
the discussion of atheist crimes against humanity and tried, as you
always do, as you are doing here, to CHANGE THE SUBJECT to the God you
are obsessed with.

No one will debate with you on ANYTHING while you refuse to provide
proof that child was a despot, your attempted justification for his
murder by atheist thugs!

In fact we already have the REAL reason for atheists support of murder,
infanticide and genoicide.. atheist's violent hatred of theists;

2. Because I'm an agnostic and don't waste my time in pointless
THEOLOGICAL debates about how many atheists fit on the head of a pin, As
an agnostic and I know that atheists CAN HAVE NO LOGICAL PROOF of their
belief that "There is no God";

http://www.thearrogantatheist.com/mensnogod.html

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-12/66798269.jpg

There is no proof of the atheist claim, it is a propaganda lie,
atheists admit to telling them routinely;

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

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

Olrik claims he has a Divine Right to lie about you
if he doesn't know the truth(which is always):

# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.religion
# Subject: Re: fasgnadh is defective
# Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:31:59 -0400
# Message-ID: <huh7l5$tss$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# I can claim whatever I want. One day I say you're an atheist,
# then I claim you're a muslim.

NO ATHEIST EVER CONDEMNS, NOR EVEN PROTESTS THE OPEN, PUBLIC
SLANDERS BY THEIR FELLOW ATHEISTS!

Debate with such LYING HYPOCRITES IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!

> Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
> evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
> at all, shall we?

Oh that's easy, but you will just ignore the EVIDENCE and change the
topic again.

With atheists only one method works, as your response demonstrates;

TELL PEOP{LE THE TRUTH ABOUT ATHEIST LIES, HYPOCRISY AND CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY, PROVIDE THER HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND WATCHE THEM
TRY TO SNIP IT ALL, RUN FROM THE FACTS AND TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Just as I have demonstrated in this thread, again! B^]

Thanks for being my teaching tool, again!

So, until you provide evidence for your PREVIOUS lies in defence of
atheist infanticide, or admit defeat and apologise for running away in
your usual display of intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice,
you can wait till Hell Freezes Over before any decent person will
attempt rational debate with YOU!! B^p

> I'll wait.


Sure, gutless to the last!

A typical atheist.

> Budikka


The secret BELIEVERS;

# From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,
alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
# Subject: Disapproving Creation:
# Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:23:40 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<b5430732-e52e-45b5...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
#
#

#> come worshiping at the altar of atheism,

# 'In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years
# into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into
# something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.

#
# Doesn�t that description sound an awful lot like God?
#

# "Certainly," Professor Dawkins replies. "It�s highly plausible that

# in the universe there are God-like creatures."
#
# He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks he�s gone around a
# religious bend. "It�s very important to understand that these Gods
# came into being by an explicable scientific progression of
# incremental evolution."'

#
#

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all

--


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

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

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



- Dr Reza Aslan

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


---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



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

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

�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�

[fasgnadh]

Malcolm McMahon snipped and misrepresented the argument:
<Unsnip>

> On 19/02/2013 1:55 AM, fasgnadh wrote:

ie, they not only believe LITERALLY the Biblical accounts
they accept them as EVIDENCE that God acts in the world! 8^o

>>> That's how religion works.
>>
>>
>> Sure, the only difference is that atheists choose to believe
>> EVERY story they see as violent and hate filled, as befits their nature,

i.e they cherry pick only the evidence they can distort and misrepresent
in their Strawman stereotypes, and reject ANY positive messages...

>> while theists look for the Good, and see it as inspirition to strive to
>> overcome and transform themselves.
>
>

> Nope, we're merely pointing out

using the bible as your only EVIDENCE;

> that people who swallow the whole package

including you atheists who base your criticism of God on it..

> are embracing
> a mythological god whose track record contains many atrocities.

and your Evidence for those 'atrocities' you claim the God you don't
believe in, committed(sic) is *the BIble*, the same Evidence the theists
claim proves God exists.

The total ILLOGIC of your position is that you claim a being
you claim not to believe in committed 'many atrocities'!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA

You are all bAtShIt cRaZy!

So you & the theists both agree that the Bible is valid evidence,
but atheists simulataneously think it shows that God exists (and doesn't
exist) but is guilty of atrocities, based on the Evidence you say isn't
evidence of His existence at all!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA

Completely IRRATIONAL!

This is funnier than atheists blaming the God they say they
don't believe in for birdstrike, and all suffering, including
that caused by atheists in the atheist states which killed far
more people (80,000,000) that ANY religion, including the
deaths recorded in the Bible which you dismiss, but also use
as Evidence of God's alleged crimes!

UTTER NONSENSE! B^D

[John Smith]

"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

Mr. Budikka

Just me
with you need
for evidence

[Jope]

On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

> > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
> > Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
> > evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
> > at all, shall we?
>
> > I'll wait.
>
> Mr. Budikka
>
> Just me
> with you need
> for evidence

The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
without an author?
Consider the sun ,the stars ,the moon.Consider the plants ,the
animals and even man himself. Does not any of it show intelligence?If
you are honest enough to answer yes.Then you have your proof right
there.
Can you define life? Do you even know what consciousness is?Who are
you? where do you come from?
How will you defend yourself in a court of law?How will escape
punishment?
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" Ps14:1

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:29:26 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Feb 18, 3:54�pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
>> > Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
>> > evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
>> > at all, shall we?
>>
>> > I'll wait.
>>
>> Mr. Budikka
>>
>> Just me
>> with you need
>> for evidence
>The evidence of God is creation itself.

Self-referential, self-serving rhetoric is not evidence. Please try
again.

>Can a painting masterpiece be without an author?

Argument by defective analogy is an erroneous argument.


>Consider the sun ,the stars ,the moon. Consider the plants ,the

>animals and even man himself. Does not any of it show intelligence?

No.

>If you are honest enough to answer yes.

I am honest enough to dismiss your indefensible assertions and to stand
up against the theists who preach these lies. You need to offer
evidence, not empty, misleading rhetoric.

>Then you have your proof right there.

You are wrong. You are totally unable to defend your thesis.

>Can you define life?

Yes.

>Do you even know what consciousness is?

Yes.

>Who are you?

A human being.

>where do you come from?

I am part of the long series of self-sustaining biochemical reactions
that have been going on for billions of years called _life_.

>How will you defend yourself in a court of law?

I have no need to.

>How will escape punishment?

There is no punishment. There is death alone.

>"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" Ps14:1

You preach an evil god unworthy of worship, a god that cannot possibly
exist.

[Jope]

On Feb 18, 6:37 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:29:26 -0800 (PST), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote

It appears that you are in possession of a knowledge that is beyond
the grasp of the scientific community .
Would you please care to define life and consciousness?

[Ken]

On Feb 18, 2:29 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote this shit:

> The evidence of God is creation itself.

TOTAL BULLSHIT!

[Budikka666]

On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
> > > Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
> > > evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
> > > at all, shall we?
>
> > > I'll wait.
>
> > Mr. Budikka
>
> > Just me
> > with you need
> > for evidence
>
> The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
> without an author?

Since I offered you a debate on this topic some time ago and *you* ran
from my challenges like the pathetic coward you and all creationist
scum are, just as faltnads is also running with his juvenile piss-poor
excuses, you have exactly NOTHING to say on this topic.

Budikka

budikka

[Olrik]

Le 2013-02-18 17:29, Jope a �crit :

> On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
>>> Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
>>> evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
>>> at all, shall we?
>>
>>> I'll wait.
>>
>> Mr. Budikka
>>
>> Just me
>> with you need
>> for evidence
> The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
> without an author?

Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?

[jope]

I do not run away from debates.You want scientific proofs of a
spiritual and immaterial being.You can only be offered deductive
evidence.
You cannot see God with a telescope or detect him with a
spectrometer.God existed from all eternity and created all things.
Stop and think.Can your little mind grasp the complexities of the
universe?
There is another way to acquire knowledge.The greatest part of our
every day life experience cannot even be intellectualized.
You want know that God exists.I know that he does.Talk to him ,ask him
to reveal himself to you.If you are sincere ,he will answer.
"Call to me and I will answer you "Jer33

[Andrew]

"Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...
> Jope a écrit :
>
>> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting

>> masterpiece be without an author?
>
> Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?

If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
doing.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,

Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.

--
JD

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

[MarkA]

HAHAHA. One thing I've notice about the "argument from ignorance": the
more ignorant you are, the more convincing it seems.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[John Smith]

"jope" <jop...@juno.com> wrote in message news:ac2f8e6c-09b6-4412...@9g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 18, 10:11 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in
>> > messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
>> > > > Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
>> > > > evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
>> > > > at all, shall we?
>> > > > I'll wait.
>> > > Mr. Budikka
>> > > Just me
>> > > with you need
>> > > for evidence
>> > The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
>> > without an author?
>> Since I offered you a debate on this topic some time ago and *you* ran
>> from my challenges like the pathetic coward you and all creationist
>> scum are, just as faltnads is also running with his juvenile piss-poor
>> excuses, you have exactly NOTHING to say on this topic.
>

> I do not run away from debates.You want scientific proofs of a
> spiritual and immaterial being.You can only be offered deductive
> evidence.
> You cannot see God with a telescope or detect him with a
> spectrometer.God existed from all eternity and created all things.
> Stop and think.Can your little mind grasp the complexities of the
> universe?
> There is another way to acquire knowledge.The greatest part of our
> every day life experience cannot even be intellectualized.
> You want know that God exists.I know that he does.Talk to him ,ask him
> to reveal himself to you.If you are sincere ,he will answer.
> "Call to me and I will answer you "Jer33
>
>

Have you read You Shell not Kill
For the existing God is not to be see.

It his Son who you need the reveal
and knowledge..

[MarkA]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:29:26 -0800, Jope wrote:

> The evidence of God is creation itself.

If you say so, but that is not the god most theists are talking about when
they refer to "God". They seem to think there is an intelligent,
self-aware Super Guy who used to talk to the prophets and write books.
"Creation itself" could be, at best, evidence that some force or property
of our Universe causes material things to exist. Even that is a stretch.
And, it's light years away from the God of Abraham.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:08:14 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:29:26 -0800, Jope wrote:
>
>
>> The evidence of God is creation itself.
>
>If you say so, but that is not the god most theists are talking about when
>they refer to "God". They seem to think there is an intelligent,
>self-aware Super Guy who used to talk to the prophets and write books.
>"Creation itself" could be, at best, evidence that some force or property
>of our Universe causes material things to exist. Even that is a stretch.
>And, it's light years away from the God of Abraham.

Do they think we're even more stupid than they are?

[Gordon]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:57:16 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

>> > Jope a �crit :

>> >
>> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>> >
>> > Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?
>>
>> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> that the book had �no� author? That is exactly what you are
>> doing.
>
>Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.
>

The problems associated with our understanding what or who God is or
how He was created is largely the result of our mental constraints. We
are adapted to thinking in terms of the three dimensions of space and
one dimension of time that we are able to perceive and objectively
test within. God is not restricted to our space/time but our minds
don't have a native ability to do much rational thinking involving
those other dimensions.

My assessment is that, from our space/time perspective, God exists and
has existed since before the beginning of our time frame. But, if we
could take a mental trip back before our time began we would have an
entirely different understanding of God and how He was created.

From a perspective within those other dimensions, the creation of God
would be somewhat like a fractal pattern in the sand on an island
beach. Where does this fractal begin and where does it end?

That we cannot think very well beyond our space/time frame means that
we cannot even come close to understanding things that are going on
outside our space/time frame. We have to accept most of this on faith
and faith alone.

There are many indicators that there is some form of cosmic
intelligence (God) involved and there are many things that simply
cannot be explained by the logic of random chance with no designer or
intelligence in control. Gordon

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:15:12 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:57:16 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,
>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

>>> > Jope a écrit :

>>> >
>>> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>>> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>>> >
>>> > Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?
>>>
>>> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>>> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>>> that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
>>> doing.
>>
>>Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.
>>
>The problems associated with our understanding what or who God is or
>how He was created is largely the result of our mental constraints.

No, moron.

The problem is idiots like you who presume a god and imagine everybody
else starts from the same presumption.

> We
>are adapted to thinking in terms of the three dimensions of space and
>one dimension of time that we are able to perceive and objectively
>test within.

So demonstrate there is more, question-begging moron.

> God

What God, question-begging moron?

> is not restricted to our space/time but our minds
>don't have a native ability to do much rational thinking involving
>those other dimensions.

Idiot.

>My assessment is that, from our space/time perspective, God

What God, question-begging moron?

> exists and
>has existed since before the beginning of our time frame.

Evidence, question-begging morovn?

> But, if we
>could take a mental trip back before our time began we would have an
>entirely different understanding of God

What God, question-begging moron?

> and how He was created.

Idiot.

>From a perspective within those other dimensions, the creation of God
>would be somewhat like a fractal pattern in the sand on an island
>beach. Where does this fractal begin and where does it end?

Idiot.

>That we cannot think very well beyond our space/time frame means that
>we cannot even come close to understanding things that are going on
>outside our space/time frame. We have to accept most of this on faith
>and faith alone.

Idiot

.
>There are many indicators that there is some form of cosmic
>intelligence (God)

More of the sdame blatant question-begging stupidity.

> involved and there are many things that simply
>cannot be explained by the logic of random chance with no designer or
>intelligence in control.

Argumrnt from personal ignorance.

> Gordon

Gordon is a moron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTKORcr1jhY

[harry k]

On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Olrik" wrote in messagenews:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

So you are claiming that god wrote a book?

Harry K

[harry k]

On Feb 19, 10:15 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:57:16 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77MnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@earthlink.com>,

> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Olrik" wrote in messagenews:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...
> >> >  Jope a écrit :
>

Perhaps if you would read through that word salad and think about it
you would see how hard you are straining to justify your belief.
BTW. It is an epic fail for any thinking person.

Harry K

[harry k]

Well, it does to the idiot posting it.

Harry K

[Jope]

No argument from ignorance here:
Suppose, you see a piece of rock moving and zigzagging by itself along
the road.You probably will want to move away.Why ?Because you know
that life and intelligence cannot be accidental.Now ,compare that with
the complexities of the universe.It is impossible to be sincere and a
atheist at the same time.

[Smiler]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:27:11 -0800, jope wrote:

> On Feb 18, 10:11�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 4:29�pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 3:54�pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:>
>> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in
>> > messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right
>> > > > here? Go ahead and present your five best items of positive
>> > > > objective evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you
>> > > > have any evidence at all, shall we?
>>
>> > > > I'll wait.
>>
>> > > Mr. Budikka
>>
>> > > Just me with you need for evidence
>>
>> > The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
>> > without an author?
>>
>> Since I offered you a debate on this topic some time ago and *you* ran
>> from my challenges like the pathetic coward you and all creationist scum
>> are, just as faltnads is also running with his juvenile piss-poor
>> excuses, you have exactly NOTHING to say on this topic.
>>

> I do not run away from debates.You want scientific proofs of a spiritual
> and immaterial being.You can only be offered deductive evidence.

Then it's NOT evidence, merely your unevidenced beliefs.

> You cannot see God with a telescope or detect him with a spectrometer.God
> existed from all eternity and created all things.

More unevidenced beliefs.

> Stop and think.Can your little mind grasp the complexities of the universe?

Now the ad homs.

> There is another way to acquire knowledge.The greatest part of our every
> day life experience cannot even be intellectualized.

So what?

> You want know that God exists.

Nope. I don't have that need.

> I know that he does.

No you don't. You only _believe_ he does.

> Talk to him ,ask him to reveal himself to
> you.If you are sincere ,he will answer.

The 'believing is seeing' crap again.
Try believing in leprechauns for five minutes (without laughing) and then
come back and tell us how many leprechauns you saw. There's exactly as
much evidence for your god character as there is for leprechauns...zero.

> "Call to me and I will answer you
> "Jer33

Quotes from your book of magic spells have as much meaning to atheists as
Harry Potter books do to you.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:56:41 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:27:11 -0800, jope wrote:
>
>> On Feb 18, 10:11 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:>
>>> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in
>>> > messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> > > > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right
>>> > > > here? Go ahead and present your five best items of positive
>>> > > > objective evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you
>>> > > > have any evidence at all, shall we?
>>>
>>> > > > I'll wait.
>>>
>>> > > Mr. Budikka
>>>
>>> > > Just me with you need for evidence
>>>
>>> > The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
>>> > without an author?
>>>
>>> Since I offered you a debate on this topic some time ago and *you* ran
>>> from my challenges like the pathetic coward you and all creationist scum
>>> are, just as faltnads is also running with his juvenile piss-poor
>>> excuses, you have exactly NOTHING to say on this topic.
>>>
>> I do not run away from debates.You want scientific proofs of a spiritual
>> and immaterial being.You can only be offered deductive evidence.
>
>Then it's NOT evidence, merely your unevidenced beliefs.

It also begs the same question he is trying desperately to cop out of
answering.

>> You cannot see God with a telescope or detect him with a spectrometer.God
>> existed from all eternity and created all things.
>
>More unevidenced beliefs.

Again begging the same question.

>> Stop and think.Can your little mind grasp the complexities of the universe?
>
>Now the ad homs.

That's all they've got when they've painted themselves into a corner
because they can't keep their beliefs inside their religion.

>> There is another way to acquire knowledge.The greatest part of our every
>> day life experience cannot even be intellectualized.
>
>So what?
>
>> You want know that God exists.
>
>Nope. I don't have that need.

He needs to demonstrate it, and if he can't then he should keep it to
himself.

>> I know that he does.
>
>No you don't. You only _believe_ he does.
>
>> Talk to him ,ask him to reveal himself to
>> you.If you are sincere ,he will answer.
>
>The 'believing is seeing' crap again.

All it does is demonstrate just how stupid and how narcissistic they
are.

>Try believing in leprechauns for five minutes (without laughing) and then
>come back and tell us how many leprechauns you saw. There's exactly as
>much evidence for your god character as there is for leprechauns...zero.

Too obvious for these idiots.

>> "Call to me and I will answer you
>> "Jer33
>
>Quotes from your book of magic spells have as much meaning to atheists as
>Harry Potter books do to you.

Again, too obvious for these narcissistic idiots.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:27:11 -0800 (PST), jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Feb 18, 10:11�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 4:29�pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 3:54�pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
>> > > > Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
>> > > > evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
>> > > > at all, shall we?
>>
>> > > > I'll wait.
>>
>> > > Mr. Budikka
>>
>> > > Just me
>> > > with you need
>> > > for evidence
>>
>> > The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
>> > without an author?
>>
>> Since I offered you a debate on this topic some time ago and *you* ran
>> from my challenges like the pathetic coward you and all creationist
>> scum are, just as faltnads is also running with his juvenile piss-poor
>> excuses, you have exactly NOTHING to say on this topic.
>>
>> Budikka
>>
>> budikka
>I do not run away from debates.You want scientific proofs of a
>spiritual and immaterial being.You can only be offered deductive
>evidence.

Clearly the concept of evidence is beyond your intellectual capabilities
-- or you are a knowing liar.

>You cannot see God with a telescope or detect him with a

>spectrometer. God existed from all eternity and created all things.

Please provide your comprehensive definition of God that is a testable
definition of that god and the supporting evidence for that definition.

>Stop and think.Can your little mind grasp the complexities of the
>universe?

Your question has absolutely nothing to do with whether any gods exist.

>There is another way to acquire knowledge.The greatest part of our
>every day life experience cannot even be intellectualized.

Hogwash.

>You want know that God exists.I know that he does.Talk to him ,ask him
>to reveal himself to you.If you are sincere ,he will answer.

You are making claims that you know you cannot back up with evidence.

>"Call to me and I will answer you "Jer33

The Bible says many things that have been demonstrated to be false. Why
would I believe something that it says that cannot be demonstrated to be
true?

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:42:11 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

>> Jope a ?it :

>>
>>> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>>> masterpiece be without an author?
>>

>> Following your logic, where did your ?uthor?came from?

>
>If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce

>that the book had ?o?author? That is exactly what you are
>doing.

That hopelessly indefensible analogy is evidence of your dishonesty.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:15:12 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote

in alt.talk.creationism:

Please name these indicators and show us how they are evidence for a
god.

[Dakota]

Wow!

"three dimensions of space and one dimension of time"

"our space/time perspective"

"beyond our space/time frame"

"fractal pattern"

It's painfully obvious that you're using 'sciency' gibberish to set
the stage for your admission that there you have absolutely no
evidence that your "cosmic intelligence (God)" exists.

What do you mean by "the logic of random chance"? Please provide some
example of things that can be explained by it. Then give us a few
examples of "things that simply cannot be explained" by it.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:41:21 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

You chose to take a step lower.

>Suppose, you see a piece of rock moving and zigzagging by itself along
>the road.You probably will want to move away.Why ?Because you know
>that life and intelligence cannot be accidental.Now ,compare that with
>the complexities of the universe.It is impossible to be sincere and a
>atheist at the same time.

That was a pile of garbage that every theist should reject as nonsense.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6gf7i8da28fupeaf9...@4ax.com>,

Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:57:16 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,
> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

> >> > Jope a écrit :

> >> >
> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
> >> >
> >> > Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?
> >>
> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> >> that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
> >> doing.
> >
> >Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.
> >
> The problems associated with our understanding what or who God is or
> how He was created is largely the result of our mental constraints.

Until you've provided ANY evidence for this existence of any god,
there's no reason to discuss our understanding of it.

[Olrik]

Le 2013-02-19 05:42, Andrew a �crit :

> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

>> Jope a �crit :

>>
>>> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>>> masterpiece be without an author?
>>
>> Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?
>
> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> that the book had �no� author? That is exactly what you are
> doing.

I already know that books are written by human beings.

[nature bats_last]

On Feb 18, 3:29 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:ca2b7316-0a8c-449c...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > > Why don't you and I debate the existence of a creator god right here?
> > > Go ahead and present your five best items of positive objective
> > > evidence for a creator-god and let's see whether you have any evidence
> > > at all, shall we?
>
> > > I'll wait.
>
> > Mr. Budikka
>
> > Just me
> > with you need
> > for evidence
>

;
> The evidence of God is creation itself.Can a painting masterpiece be
> without an author?

;

> Consider the sun ,the stars ,the moon.Consider the plants ,the
> animals and even man himself. Does not any of it show intelligence?If
> you are honest enough to answer yes.Then you have your proof right
> there.
;
> Can you define life? Do you even know what consciousness is?Who are
> you? where do you come from?
> How will you defend yourself in a court of law?How will escape
> punishment?

OK, OK, all right already. Trust me, these creation
vs. evolution, intelligent design vs. emergent
complexity, divine invention vs. self-organization
arguments can go on forever and never get beyond that
point.

So let's waive that and get on to the fun part. In
other words, I am willing to agree with you --
contingently, and just for the sake of argument -- that
the endless wonders we see around us argue
overwhelmingly for the necessity of a Creator.

So, since we now (provisionally) agree on that, take me
one step further -- give me some reason to agree with
you that the Sentient Intelligent Creative Thing you
deem necessary is in fact the god of your particular
religion. Not one of the other 37000-plus entities
humans have worshipped, not some advanced alien race,
not some massively intelligent and powerful Unknown
Thing that we have never conceived of and could not
perceive if it were right in front of us.

None of those, but your own particular peculiar god.

What is your evidence for that?

NBL

[jope]

Here is what we have:
The words of Jesus Christ
The miracles of Jesua Christ
The words of the apostles
The miracle of the apostles.
The current evidences of the supernatural.
The manifest presence of God in the heart of the believer.
The manifest presence pf God in the life of the believer.
Each one of those elements is substantial and can be elaborated for
the sincerely minded;or can be investigated by anyone with higher
aspirations.
"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you
cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with
everyone born of the Spirit." John 3:8

[jope]

I meant to write:The miracles of the apostles.The miracles of the
bible are presented with a strong matter of fact conviction.It is that
conviction that sets the bible apart from any other religious book.
And concerning Jesus Christ:"Never any man has spoken like this man"
One needs to account for those things in order to offer any valid
opiniopn about the scripture

[Virgil]

In article
<23b79853-bf26-491d...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:

> Here is what we have:

You have nothing but your imagination.
--

[Gordon]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:36:17 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <6gf7i8da28fupeaf9...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:57:16 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,
>> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

>> >> > Jope a �crit :

>> >> >
>> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>> >> >
>> >> > Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?
>> >>
>> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> >> that the book had �no� author? That is exactly what you are
>> >> doing.
>> >
>> >Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.
>> >
>> The problems associated with our understanding what or who God is or
>> how He was created is largely the result of our mental constraints.
>
>
>Until you've provided ANY evidence for this existence of any god,
>there's no reason to discuss our understanding of it.
>

Do you feel the same way about Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory
and all other theories that haven't yet been proven? Would any of
these theories have ever been proven had all scientists taken your
stance on things that haven't yet been proven? Gordon

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:44:34 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:36:17 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

>>Until you've provided ANY evidence for this existence of any god,
>>there's no reason to discuss our understanding of it.
>>
>Do you feel the same way about Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory
>and all other theories that haven't yet been proven? Would any of
>these theories have ever been proven had all scientists taken your
>stance on things that haven't yet been proven? Gordon

You know perfectly well that superstrings are speculation, imbecile.

[harry k]

And you could add to that some evidence that that thing/being/whateve
even gives a shit aobut the population of one small nondescrept world
lost in billions of galaxies.

Harry K

[harry k]

By that reasoning Hogwartz and all those stories are also true.

Harry K

[James]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

>In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...
>> > Jope a �crit :
>> >

>> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting

>> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>> >

>> > Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?
>>
>> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> that the book had �no� author? That is exactly what you are
>> doing.
>
>Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.

Well, do you have any respect for Isaac Newton? Sir Isaac Newton
reasoned with an atheist on this subject:

"Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar
system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to
move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton.
On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, "Who
made it?" Newton answered, "Nobody!" The atheist replied, "You must
think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius."
Newton then said to his friend, "This thing is but a puny imitation of
a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to
convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet
you profess to believe that the great original from which the design
is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!""
(taken from the book "Good News to Make You Happy", 1976, p. 54.)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:31:00 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>
>Well, do you have any respect for Isaac Newton? Sir Isaac Newton
>reasoned with an atheist on this subject:
>
>"Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar
>system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to
>move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton.
>On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, "Who
>made it?" Newton answered, "Nobody!" The atheist replied, "You must
>think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius."
>Newton then said to his friend, "This thing is but a puny imitation of
>a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to
>convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet
>you profess to believe that the great original from which the design
>is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!""
>(taken from the book "Good News to Make You Happy", 1976, p. 54.)

Almost certainly untrue, but if it is you really should find out what
Newton believed about religion.

And your little story still does not answer who made the maker.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <0jk9i81kcii05e6rh...@4ax.com>,

When did I say ANYTHING about proof? If you don't understand the
difference between evidence and proof, I urge you to educate yourself on
the subject.

As for SS-M theory, I certainly don't believe in it. It is a hypothesis
that certainly seems to fit much of the information we do have and is
quite compelling, but it by no means certain. And, yet, there IS
evidence for it, even if it's not conclusive.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Lucky me, I got a private email from one of our trolls; here it is:


*****

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

>In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

>> > Jope a ecrit :

>> >
>> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>> >
>> > Following your logic, where did your <<author>> came from?
>>
>> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> that the book had <<no>> author? That is exactly what you are
>> doing.
>
>Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.

Well, do you have any respect for Isaac Newton? Sir Isaac Newton
reasoned with an atheist on this subject:

"Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar
system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to
move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton.
On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, "Who
made it?" Newton answered, "Nobody!" The atheist replied, "You must
think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius."
Newton then said to his friend, "This thing is but a puny imitation of
a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to
convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet
you profess to believe that the great original from which the design
is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!""
(taken from the book "Good News to Make You Happy", 1976, p. 54.)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

*****

This silly James person seems to think that accepting Newton's
scientific discoveries means I must also accept his (heretical at the
time) views on religion and god.

Will they ever learn?

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:34:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

At least superstring is informed speculations. God are speculated about
without a bit of information.

[Brian E. Clark]

In article
<pqSdnebW7ajvy77M...@earthlink.com>,
andrew....@usa.net says...

> > Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?
>
> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
> doing.

If you found an author in the desert, would you then deduce
that he had no mother? That's exactly what you're doing.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Smiler]

And there is evidence that Kings Cross station, in London, exists. That's
where the story tells us that Harry Potter left for Hogwarts School from.

It's written, so it _must_ be true...

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-359006...@news.giganews.com...

> Lucky me, I got a private email from one of our trolls; here it is:
> *****

> Jeanne Douglas wrote:

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...
>>> > Jope a ecrit :
>>> >
>>> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>>> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>>> >
>>> > Following your logic, where did your <<author>> came from?
>>>
>>> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>>> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>>> that the book had <<no>> author? That is exactly what you are
>>> doing.
>>
>>Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.
>
> Well, do you have any respect for Isaac Newton? Sir Isaac Newton
> reasoned with an atheist on this subject:
>
> "Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar
> system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to
> move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton.
> On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, "Who
> made it?" Newton answered, "Nobody!" The atheist replied, "You must
> think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius."
> Newton then said to his friend, "This thing is but a puny imitation of
> a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to
> convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet
> you profess to believe that the great original from which the design
> is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!""

Thanks for the above, which succinctly illustrates
again, the utter foolishness of the atheists position.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Z_Kdnf9pBrrCGbjM...@earthlink.com>,

How, precisely, does it do that?

[Ralph]

Say the fool who reasons that everything was made by an unknown deity,
by unknown means,
and then stammers when you ask him how this deity was created.

[Olrik]

Le 2013-02-20 10:57, harry k a �crit :

And much, much more entertaining!

> Harry K

[nature bats_last]

> > > humans have worshipped, not some =A0advanced alien race,

> > > not some massively intelligent and powerful Unknown
> > > Thing that we have never conceived of and could not
> > > perceive if it were right in front of us.

;
> > > None of those, but your own particular peculiar god.
> > What is your evidence for that?

;

> > Here is what we have:
> > The words of Jesus Christ
> > The miracles of Jesua Christ
> > The words of the apostles
> > The miracle of the apostles.
> > The current evidences of the supernatural.
> > The manifest presence of God in the heart of the believer.
> > The manifest presence pf God in the life of the believer.
> > Each one of those elements is substantial and can be elaborated for
> > the sincerely minded;or can be investigated by anyone with higher
> > aspirations.
> > "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you
> > cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with
> > everyone born of the Spirit." John 3:8

;
> I meant to write:The miracles of the apostles.The miracles of the
> bible are presented with a strong matter of fact conviction.It is that
> conviction that sets the bible apart from any other religious book.
> And concerning Jesus Christ:"Never any man has spoken like this man"
> One needs to account for those things in order to offer any valid
> opiniopn about the scripture

Or, to summarize, your evidence that the Creator of the
Universe is one and the same as the god of your
religion is...a book with a series of stories in it.

As for your contention that the Bible evinces some kind
of "conviction" that is found in no other religious
book, no religious book in the history of
humanity...well, I do have to ask you for evidence of
that sweeping claim. One certainly finds no lack of
conviction, for example, in the Qu'ran, in which Jesus
is highly regarded -- as a prophet, and nothing more

I have on my screen at this moment the Bhagavad Gita,
which some scholars of religion have called the world's
most beloved book. We learn a great deal of the
teachings of Krishna from this book. Should I then take
the series of stories in this book as my guide to the
identity of the Creator of the Universe?

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, in the interest
of streamlining this discussion: one who does not
already hold a belief in your particular god will never
be convinced with stories taken from a book of stories
held sacred by those who already do belive in that god.
Or to put that same point another way: do you think you
could be converted by Hindus who quoted at you from
their sacred Gita?

(and is it possible that the religion which you are
so sincere about is the religion which you just
happened to have been born into?)

NBL

[Jope]

Unless you have some kind of need within your soul to know the
truth,they will all look alike to you.
I cannot infuse into no one the need to know God.If you ever come to
experience any transcendental yearning ,the difference will then
matter.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and
I will raise him up at the last day."John 6v44

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:R8mdnSLYz9n9FbjM...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:

He is the Creator.

> by unknown means,

The means is known, in a general sense.

> and then stammers when you ask him
> how this deity was created.

He was not created.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <hdSdndUDyrk7KrjM...@earthlink.com>,

Unevidenced assertion.

> > by unknown means,
>
> The means is known, in a general sense.

Unevidenced assertion.

> > and then stammers when you ask him
> > how this deity was created.
>
> He was not created.

So this alleged god always existed?

[Jope]

I meant to write: I cannot infuse into anyone the need to know God.In
the past ,people worshipped all kinds of gods.The romans and the
greeks had a whole bunch of them.But when the knowledge of the true
God became available,many ran toward him.Today ,some people are
worshipping human science, others worship money.Still , many are
feeling ,that there has got to be more to life than this passing
experience.
If I mention miracles and the presence of the Holy Spirit,that would
sound foolish to you ,because tnat kind of life ,that dimension is
completely foreign to the unsaved.
Many have left Islam ,because it cannot quench the desire of the
soul.Many have rejected hinduism and the bhagavad gita because they
have found Jesus ,the living water that quenches the soul.
There are many roads in the world,only one leads to the true and
eternal life:Jesu Christ.

"Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living
water will flow from within him"
John 7v38
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you
rest."
Matthew 11:28
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me."John 14:6

[Andrew]

"harry k" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message news:0c0aef0d-720e-479b...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Olrik" wrote:
>> > Jope a �crit :
>>
>> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting

>> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>>

>> > Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?
>>
>> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> that the book had �no� author? That is exactly what you are
>> doing.
>

> So you are claiming that god wrote a book?

I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.

[Virgil]

In article <hdSdndUDyrk7KrjM...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> He is the Creator.

Who is? and of what? and why do you think so?
--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3sKdnTzqoZoCILjM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "harry k" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message
> news:0c0aef0d-720e-479b...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Olrik" wrote:

> >> > Jope a écrit :

> >>
> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
> >>
> >> > Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?
> >>
> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> >> that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
> >> doing.
> >
> > So you are claiming that god wrote a book?
>
> I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
> having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.

Only in your delusions.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-B5D69A...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "harry k" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Olrik" wrote:

>> >> > Jope a �crit :

>> >>
>> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>> >>
>> >> > Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?
>> >>
>> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> >> that the book had �no� author? That is exactly what you are
>> >> doing.
>> >
>> > So you are claiming that god wrote a book?
>>
>> I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
>> having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.
>
> Only in your delusions.

Explain.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <OO2dnf5owpCXS7jM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-B5D69A...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "harry k" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Olrik" wrote:

> >> >> > Jope a écrit :

> >> >>
> >> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
> >> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
> >> >>
> >> >> > Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> >> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> >> >> that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
> >> >> doing.
> >> >
> >> > So you are claiming that god wrote a book?
> >>
> >> I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
> >> having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.
> >
> > Only in your delusions.
>
> Explain.

There's absolutely no evidence of the universe having any kind of
Creator beyond the laws of physics and science, and believing that
nothing proves something is pure delusion.

Or really poor thinking skills.

[casey]

On Feb 21, 8:28 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <OO2dnf5owpCXS7jMnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@earthlink.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> >news:hlwdjsd2-B5D69A...@news.giganews.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >> "harry k" wrote:
> > >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >> >> "Olrik" wrote:
> > >> >> > Jope a écrit :
>
> > >> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
> > >> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>
> > >> >> > Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?
>
> > >> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> > >> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> > >> >> that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
> > >> >> doing.
>
> > >> >  So you are claiming that god wrote a book?
>
> > >> I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
> > >> having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.
>
> > > Only in your delusions.
>
> > Explain.
>
> There's absolutely no evidence of the universe having any kind of
> Creator beyond the laws of physics and science, and believing that
> nothing proves something is pure delusion.
>
> Or really poor thinking skills.

And pure ignorance of what we do know about how the Universe works.

To ignorant people it seems like magic unless god did it.

But science has begun to unravel how the magic is done.

[Les]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:28:29 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <OO2dnf5owpCXS7jM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
>> news:hlwdjsd2-B5D69A...@news.giganews.com...
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "harry k" wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> "Olrik" wrote:

>> >> >> > Jope a �crit :

>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>> >> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Following your logic, where did your �author� came from?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> >> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> >> >> that the book had �no� author? That is exactly what you are
>> >> >> doing.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you are claiming that god wrote a book?
>> >>
>> >> I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
>> >> having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.
>> >
>> > Only in your delusions.
>>
>> Explain.
>
>There's absolutely no evidence of the universe having any kind of
>Creator beyond the laws of physics and science, and believing that
>nothing proves something is pure delusion.
>
>Or really poor thinking skills.

If I found a book in the desert I would know straight away it
was made by mankind. If I found a scorpion I would marvel
at the wonder of nature and how evolution managed to
adapt life so it was capable of living even in the desert.

One thing I am certain I will not find. Can anybody guess
what that will be?


Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

[James]

Mike Painter <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net>

Isaac Newton was not perfect by any means. (who is?) And you either
accept his logic, or dispute it, the choice is yours. Newton believed
in one God, based on what he saw in creation:

"Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose
existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all
creation." (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

>
>And your little story still does not answer who made the maker.

Who said the maker HAD to be made?

God is the MAKER of all natural laws. He does not have to be part of
them. True, we logically always see or theorize that everything has a
beginning, but that doesn't mean that the originator of our logical
thought, must be included. That is just an assumption.

[harry k]

On Feb 20, 10:01 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:R8mdnSLYz9n9FbjM...@giganews.com...

> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
> >>> Lucky me, I got a private email from one of our trolls; here it is:
> >>> *****
> >>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>

> >>>>> "Olrik" wrote in messagenews:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

Two baseless assertions noted. I think you have been told in the past
what those are worth.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Feb 20, 10:26 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "harry k" <turn...@q.com> wrote in messagenews:0c0aef0d-720e-479b...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...

Glad you admit it is nothing but a claim. Since you didnt' provide
any, it is safe to assume there is no evidence for it.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Feb 21, 1:28 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <OO2dnf5owpCXS7jMnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@earthlink.com>,
>
>
>
>
>

or, as in Andrew's case, his normal idiocy.

Harry K

[Brian E. Clark]

In article
<hdSdndUDyrk7KrjM...@earthlink.com>,
andrew....@usa.net says...

> > Say the fool who reasons that everything was made by an unknown deity,
>
> He is the Creator.

You've got your Kirks confused.

[Smiler]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:29:24 -0500, Brian E. Clark wrote:

> In article
> <hdSdndUDyrk7KrjM...@earthlink.com>, andrew....@usa.net
> says...
>
>> > Say the fool who reasons that everything was made by an unknown deity,
>>
>> He is the Creator.
>
> You've got your Kirks confused.

He's waiting for the Rapture, to be 'beamed up' by Scotty.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:19:41 -0800, Jope wrote:

> On Feb 21, 12:39�am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 12:01�am, nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 20, 12:10�am, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > > On Feb 20, 2:03�am, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:

<snip>

What 'truth' would that be? The 'truth' for which you have zero evidence?

>> they will all look alike to you. I cannot infuse into no one the need
>> to know God.If you ever come to experience any transcendental yearning
>> ,the difference will then matter.

I won't, as I'm sane.

>> � "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,

>> and I will raise him up at the last day."John 6v44

How are quotes from your book of myths, legends, contradictions, magic
spells and downright lies meant to persuade those of us who don't believe
it of anything?

> I meant to write: I cannot infuse into anyone the need to know God.In
> the past ,people worshipped all kinds of gods.

Gods that you don't believe in, exactly as I don't believe in yours.

> The romans and the greeks had a whole bunch of them.But when the
> knowledge of the true God became available,many ran toward him. Today,
> some people are worshipping human science, others worship money.

Sorry, Skippy, but nobody worships science.

> Still ,many are feeling ,that there has got to be more to life than
> this passing experience.

Only in your opinion.

> If I mention miracles and the presence of the Holy Spirit,that would
> sound foolish to you ,because tnat kind of life ,that dimension is
> completely foreign to the unsaved. Many have left Islam ,because it
> cannot quench the desire of the soul.Many have rejected hinduism and the
> bhagavad gita

Even more have left all religion and began to think for themselves.

> because they have found Jesus ,the living water that quenches the soul.

Define 'soul' and provide evidence that such a thing exists.

<snip bibblebabble>

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:26:55 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"harry k" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message news:0c0aef0d-720e-479b...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Olrik" wrote:

>>> > Jope a ?it :

>>>
>>> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>>> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>>>

>>> > Following your logic, where did your ?uthor?came from?

>>>
>>> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>>> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce

>>> that the book had ?o?author? That is exactly what you are

>>> doing.
>>
>> So you are claiming that god wrote a book?
>
>I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
>having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.
>

What book? You cannot possibly be talking about the error-filled stories
of the Bible.

[nature bats_last]

Miracles, if they occur, can be documented
(under the right circumstances). A good
friend of mine has a dear friend who lost both
legs in Viet Nam. Witnessing those lost legs
regenerating -- and of course Jesus did say
"What things soever ye desire, when ye pray,
believe that ye receive them, and ye shall
have them", so maybe that wouldn't be all
that hard to arrange -- I promise you I'd be
in church within the hour.

;

> Many have left Islam ,because it cannot quench the desire of the
> soul.Many have rejected hinduism and the bhagavad gita because they
> have found Jesus

And we may take it that you can document this
for us? Numbers, studies, referrences, that
sort of thing? Forgive me, but this sort of
claim is so easy to make, I'd like to see
some evidence. It does seem to smack a bit
of "I heard it somewhere..."

;

> ,the living water that quenches the soul.
> There are many roads in the world,only one leads to the true and
> eternal life:Jesu Christ.

You mentioned transcedental desires. I
certainly have had those, and not only
desires, but transcendental experiences.
Peak experiences. More than once.

None left me convinced that your god, or any
other god, was involved.

;

> "Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living
> water will flow from within him"
> John 7v38
> "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you
> rest."
> Matthew 11:28
> "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
> comes to the Father except through me."John 14:6

Did I mention that quoting the Bible will be
as effective in bringing me to Jesus as
quoting the Vedas would be in bring you to
Ganesh?

In any event, I was a Christian for a quarter
of the century; I doubt you can quote a verse
I am not already familiar with.


NBL

[John Smith]

"nature bats_last" <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7cf8092e-3f44-40c9...@y2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...

The Book of Mormon
and Qu'ran is
the same unto
other religious
Not Bibles.....

It's his Son
who need to be reveal
By the knowledge of
Knowing he more
then a prophet

But a Son of Allah
By a Woman he said unto
Be you with child
and she became
with Child.

With out the Hands
and the need of
a Human Male

But the prophet of Qu'ran
Believe not in Jesus
As the Son of Allah
Nor did he
Believe that Allah
was able to make of
Woman with Child
with out
the need of
a Male

>
> I have on my screen at this moment the Bhagavad Gita,
> which some scholars of religion have called the world's
> most beloved book. We learn a great deal of the
> teachings of Krishna from this book. Should I then take
> the series of stories in this book as my guide to the
> identity of the Creator of the Universe?
>

Supreme Abode "The Rebirth"

Krishna is the Evil One
Who is Can not be Reborn

> Let me make one thing perfectly clear, in the interest
> of streamlining this discussion: one who does not
> already hold a belief in your particular god will never
> be convinced with stories taken from a book of stories
> held sacred by those who already do belive in that god.
> Or to put that same point another way: do you think you
> could be converted by Hindus who quoted at you from
> their sacred Gita?
>

All Words of God
Will come to pass
Be it from
Hindus to Mormon
And all in between.

[Andrew]

"harry k" wrote in message news:cada8296-9289-4f19...@h6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...

"Andrew" wrote:
> "harry k" wrote

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Olrik" wrote:
> >> > Jope a crit :
>
> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>
> >> > Following your logic, where did your author came from?
>
> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> >> that the book had no author? That is exactly what you are
> >> doing.
>
> > So you are claiming that god wrote a book?
>
> I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
> having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.

-
- Glad you admit it is nothing but a claim. Since you didnt'
- provide any, it is safe to assume there is no evidence for it.

It is never ~safe~ to reject truth, rather it is dangerous.
It signifies that you are on a path of darkness that leads
only to death.

[Richo]

On Feb 20, 5:15 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:57:16 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <pqSdnebW7ajvy77MnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@earthlink.com>,

> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Olrik" wrote in messagenews:kfv0c2$nvv$3...@dont-email.me...

> >> >  Jope a écrit :

>
> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself.  Can a painting
> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>
> >> > Following your logic, where did your «author» came from?
>
> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
> >> that the book had «no» author? That is exactly what you are
> >> doing.
>

> >Wow, you're almost as putrid at analogies as Jason.
>

> The problems associated with our understanding what or who God is or
> how He was created is largely the result of our mental constraints.

God self-existing is counter-intuitive.
A universe coming into existence from nothing is counter-intuitive.
A universe which is part of an infinite multiverse is counter-
intuitive.

Whatever the "ultimate" reality of existence is - it will be counter
intuitive.

> We
> are adapted to thinking in terms of the three dimensions of space and
> one dimension of time that we are able to perceive and objectively
> test within.

> God is not restricted to our space/time but our minds
> don't have a native ability to do much rational thinking involving
> those other dimensions.

God is an idea created by limited humans trying to understand
existence.
Its a very limited and unimaginative attempt at comprehension.

>
> My assessment is that, from our space/time perspective, God exists and
> has existed since before the beginning of our time frame.

My assessment is that God is imaginary.

> But, if we
> could take a mental trip back before our time began we would have an
> entirely different understanding of God and how He was created.
>

Or not.

> From a perspective within those other dimensions, the creation of God
> would be somewhat like a fractal pattern in the sand on an island
> beach. Where does this fractal begin and where does it end?
>
> That we cannot think very well beyond our space/time frame means that
> we cannot even come close to understanding things that are going on
> outside our space/time frame. We have to accept most of this on faith
> and faith alone.
>
or not accept it at all and simply and humbly admit we don't know.
That would be my choice.

> There are many indicators that there is some form of cosmic
> intelligence (God) involved and there are many things that simply
> cannot be explained by the logic of random chance with no designer or
> intelligence in control.  Gordon

Perhaps reality is forever beyond our grasp.
"Magic man in the sky did it" seems a very childish attempt at an
explanation in any event.

Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardson61ATgmailDOTcom

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------

[Richo]

On Feb 21, 12:44 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:36:17 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <6gf7i8da28fupeaf95im0ulon7kn2q5...@4ax.com>,

> > Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> The problems associated with our understanding what or who God is or
> >> how He was created is largely the result of our mental constraints.
>

> >Until you've provided ANY evidence for this existence of any god,
> >there's no reason to discuss our understanding of it.
>
> Do you feel the same way about Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory
> and all other theories that haven't yet been proven?

Certinly - we shouldnt just believe things without understanding what
it is we are "believing".

> Would any of
> these theories have ever been proven had all scientists taken your
> stance on things that haven't yet been proven?     Gordon

String theory isn't "proven" - scientific theories are useful if they
help describe how things actually work and make testable predictions -
and are they are discarded or modified when they are contradicted by
observations - they are *disproved* but never *proved*

[harry k]

On Feb 21, 8:23 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "harry k" wrote in messagenews:cada8296-9289-4f19...@h6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...

Never get tired of making baseless claims do you? Ready to provide
some of that "evidence"?

Harry K

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:11:17 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

So you are not a Christian, or are you one of the small number of
Christians who do not believe in a trinity?

>
>>
>>And your little story still does not answer who made the maker.
>
>Who said the maker HAD to be made?
>
>God is the MAKER of all natural laws. He does not have to be part of
>them. True, we logically always see or theorize that everything has a
>beginning, but that doesn't mean that the originator of our logical
>thought, must be included. That is just an assumption.

The assumption that there is a creator is a far larger jump.

Basically this translates to "Everything has to have a creator except
that everything does not have to have a creator. BECAUSE I SAY SO."

Who says our maker is the ultimate maker?
Who says there can't be an infinite number of makers or an aleph one
number of makers?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <GZidndE9yqaBb7vM...@earthlink.com>,

Being born leads to death.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <68kdi89rgtmducc2b...@4ax.com>,

I think he's talking about the book without a cover or cover page that
you would find in the desert.

[Les]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:23:11 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"harry k" wrote in message news:cada8296-9289-4f19...@h6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "harry k" wrote
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Olrik" wrote:
>> >> > Jope a crit :
>>
>> >> >> The evidence of God is creation itself. Can a painting
>> >> >> masterpiece be without an author?
>>
>> >> > Following your logic, where did your author came from?
>>
>> >> If you found a book in the desert where you could not find a
>> >> page that had the name of the author, would you then deduce
>> >> that the book had no author? That is exactly what you are
>> >> doing.

This is a pathetic analogy-argument

Everybody knows what a book is, we have all handled several
in our lives and we know all standard books in one of the western
languages have title pages listing the Title, author, publisher and
sometimes the printer and we know exactly where to find it.

If we did not find the title page most people would conclude it
was missing only creationists it seems would assume it had no author
and make the ususal conclusion 'god did-it' when they come across
something they cannot understand.

>> > So you are claiming that god wrote a book?

The Bible does not list its authors on its Title page, maybe
this is why they conclude 'god did-it?

>> I am claiming that the creation has positive evidence of
>> having had an intelligent causation -- same as the book.
>-
>- Glad you admit it is nothing but a claim. Since you didnt'
>- provide any, it is safe to assume there is no evidence for it.
>
>It is never ~safe~ to reject truth, rather it is dangerous.
>It signifies that you are on a path of darkness that leads
>only to death.

Absolutely just as it it dangerous to accept as true something
that is not true.

This can easily be tested by asking the truth sayer to
prove what he claims to be true.

Are you claiming to be a 'truth-sayer'?

[Les]

Aint that the truth?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3cbei8hse7d4d5ji1...@4ax.com>,

It's probably the ONLY Truth.