Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

[The Starmaker]

Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

(need i say more)?

case fuckin closed.

and that's that!

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:51:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

It's based on neither, imbecile.

>(need i say more)?
>
>case fuckin closed.
>
>and that's that!

FOAD, lying moron.

[Alan Baker]

No.

Atheism is based on not believing in things for which there is no evidence.

And that... ...is that.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:51:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

incorrect, as an atheist I can tell you one thing that I believe, and
I do have proof for it. YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

I know that you posted this crap just to get the attention that you
want. You like the abuse, you like the insults. You have become so
acustomed to it you need it. You feel that you life is empty without
it so you ask for it even beg for it. And that is just a poor excuse
for an existence

[Christopher A. Lee]

It's an old troll whose entry in my killfile must hace expired.

[Olrik]

0 on 5 on the troll meter.

You just suck, dude.


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

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

Come on already...
who do yous atheist think you're fooling?

Everybody knows where you get your...
'atheist ideas' from..
you get it from that
monkey book by
charles darwin.

What yous are not aware
about charles was that
charles darwin was a very
religious man.

Then his daughter died
and that's when he
ran from religion
and started hating God.

So charles darwin
came out with a
'explain away God book'...
just to get some ...payback.

What charles darwin and
everyone else it seems not to know
is that..there are
"alternative explanations"
for *everything* in the world
and the universe.

Atheism are just people
who worship...
The Monkey Book.



The Starmaker

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-04-25 05:59:28 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>
>
> Come on already...
> who do yous atheist think you're fooling?
>
> Everybody knows where you get your...
> 'atheist ideas' from..
> you get it from that
> monkey book by
> charles darwin.

Wrong.

>
> What yous are not aware
> about charles was that
> charles darwin was a very
> religious man.

Don't care.

>
> Then his daughter died
> and that's when he
> ran from religion
> and started hating God.

Don't care.

>
> So charles darwin
> came out with a
> 'explain away God book'...
> just to get some ...payback.

Wrong.

>
> What charles darwin and
> everyone else it seems not to know
> is that..there are
> "alternative explanations"
> for *everything* in the world
> and the universe.
>
> Atheism are just people
> who worship...
> The Monkey Book.

Wrong.

And evolution: that's as much a fact as anything non-trivial can be.

:-)

[The Starmaker]

Charles darwin evolution is 'just a theory'....pure speculation.


How can you call it a fact? Or, is that just Your belief...

[Andrew]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:mhfe8l$ub1$1...@news.datemas.de...

> And evolution: that's as much a fact as anything non-trivial can be.

Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.

Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
species.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

When "theory" is used in the context of science, it doesn't ever mean
"pure speculation".

>
>
> How can you call it a fact? Or, is that just Your belief...

Because it has been repeatedly tested and refined and found to measure
up to those tests.

[Alan Baker]

Complete and utter uninformed...

...bullshit.

[Andrew]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:mhfiq9$83u$1...@news.datemas.de...

> The Starmaker said:
>> Alan Baker wrote:

Yet always within the genetic limits of a reproducing species.

Therefore life forms will never advance into a higher taxonomic
rank through an evolutionary process. However they will do so
in the fantasies of the Darwinist.

"We must concede that there are presently no
detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
variety of wishful speculations."
~ Franklin M. Harold,
Professor Emeritus
Biochemistry

[Andrew]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:mhfir3$83u$2...@news.datemas.de...
> Andrew said:

>> "Alan Baker" wrote:
>>> And evolution: that's as much a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
>>
>> Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>>
>> Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
>> species.
>
> Complete and utter uninformed...
>
> ...bullshit.

Since you cannot cite where or how, it appears that truth has exposed
your deception, causing a critical mass effect in you sub cortical zone.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

>
> Therefore life forms will never advance into a higher taxonomic
> rank through an evolutionary process. However they will do so
> in the fantasies of the Darwinist.

Still wrong.

[Alan Baker]

And you've cited so very much yourself, have you?

(Oh, and "sub cortical" should have a hypen).

[HVAC]

I've read the bible. Twice.
I didn't see that mentioned there. Can you cite chapter and verse?

I'll wait right here.


--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mhfir3$83u$2...@news.datemas.de>,

I've lost count of how many times Andrew's been asked to explain what
these genetic limits are and how they work. Funnily, he has never
answered.

--

JD

Je suis Charlie.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:42:47 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-04-25 05:59:28 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>
>> > The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

The button-pushing liar knows it is "based" on neither. All it means
is that has no reason to be theist.

>> > Come on already...
>> > who do yous atheist think you're fooling?

Illiterate, lying moron.

>> > Everybody knows where you get your...
>> > 'atheist ideas' from..
>> > you get it from that
>> > monkey book by
>> > charles darwin.
>>
>> Wrong.

It was a deliberately stupid, button-pushing lie. There were atheists
long before Darwin - his grandfather was one. And what "monkey book"
was he lying about?

And evolution was already known (and accepted) among the educated,
especially in his own fields of interest as a boy - the studies of
wildlife and geology.

>> > What yous are not aware
>> > about charles was that
>> > charles darwin was a very
>> > religious man.

Only in his younger years - but he wasn't actually all that religious,
he had the typical upbringing of a child growing up in a well-to-do
family.

He felt that a job as a country parson would give him time to pursue
his real interest in nature.

If he had been very religious he would not have dropped out of
studying for that job to go on the voyage of exploration and
discovery.

>> Don't care.
>>
>> >
>> > Then his daughter died
>> > and that's when he
>> > ran from religion
>> > and started hating God.

More deliberately button pushing lies.

His discoveries made him lose his faith - he couldn't reconcile the
loving god he had been raised to believe in unthinkingly, with the
eat-or-be-eaten struggle for survival in nature that drove natural
selection.

He already accepted evolution, but his observations could not be
accounted for, using the current explanations by Lamarck and a few
others. So he developed a new explanatory framework, natural
selection, which explained pretty well everything about evolution.

He was already an agnostic when his daughter died, and that was the
last straw. In fact, he was "up front" with his wife and told her he
was an agnostic before they even married.

And the button-pushing liar knows that you would have to believe in
his or any other god, to hate it.

>> Don't care.
>>
>> >
>> > So charles darwin
>> > came out with a
>> > 'explain away God book'...

Another deliberately stupid button-pushing lie.

Darwin had no such motivation. He was simply an honest scientist who
revised his religious beliefs in the light of what he learned from his
work.

He didn't publish it until many years later, because he didn't want to
offend his wife, who was a devout believer (in those days women and
girls were more serious believers than men, because they were educated
differently), and didn't want to upset the religious establishment.

>> > just to get some ...payback.

As usual, a lying theist invents non-exist ant "motivations" and
attributes them to those who don't share his beliefs.

>> Wrong.
>>
>> >
>> > What charles darwin and
>> > everyone else it seems not to know
>> > is that..there are
>> > "alternative explanations"
>> > for *everything* in the world
>> > and the universe.

But not based on objective research into real world observation.

>> > Atheism are just people
>> > who worship...
>> > The Monkey Book.

Another of the deliberate liar's button-pushing lies.

>> Wrong.
>>
>> And evolution: that's as much a fact as anything non-trivial can be.

Exactly - it's the observation that species change and diverge over
time, first seen in fossil collections, comparing them with modern
specimens a long time before Darwin.

>> :-)
>
>
>Charles darwin evolution is 'just a theory'....pure speculation.

Anothe4r deliberately button-pushing lie.

In science, "theory" is the label given to the explanation for the
fact.

By this in-your-face moron's "reasoning", the study of atoms known as
"atomic theory" means atoms are pure speculation. Likewise music,
graphs and anything else that has the word "theory" tacked on to
describe its explanation.

>How can you call it a fact?

Because is, deliberately button-pushing liar. The observations won't
go away just because some mentally ill psychopath attacks atheists
with strawmen about something that is nothing to do with atheism.

Which is worse?

That the troll believes this mindless nonsense and uses it to attack a
minority he hates, even though educated Christians everywhere, even in
the USA, accept it as part of the global knowledge base to the extent
that whole sciences and technologies derived from it wouldn't even
exist without it.

Or that he doesn't believe his button-pushing lies about things that
are nothing to do with atheism even though too many pig-ignorant
fundamentalists have been brainwashed to imagine it is, but repeats
them because it's a game to him?

Which is clearly the case with this psychopath.

Both are indicative of serious mental illness.

> Or, is that just Your belief...

The in-your-face, button-pushing liar can't stop lying.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:21:55 -0700, Alan Baker <em...@domain.com>
wrote:

He knows - he has been repeating this deliberate lie for many years to
try and annoy a group for whom he has an irrational hate because they
don't share the beliefs that are at the centre of his very being.

Like far too many in-your-face Christian fundamentalists, he thinks
it's a game to keep repeating the same old nonsense that takes no
notice of the fact that his involuntary audience aren't even
Christian.

And that includes the lies he's been fed by dishonest creationist
ministers who don't it as lying when it's to keep the sheep in the
fold.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:49:28 -0700, Alan Baker <em...@domain.com>
wrote:

He knows this is highly contentious - which is why he keeps doing it.

>> Therefore life forms will never advance into a higher taxonomic
>> rank through an evolutionary process. However they will do so
>> in the fantasies of the Darwinist.

The proven serial liar keeps repeating the same lies.

>Still wrong.

The Liars For God will never admit that even in the educationally
backward USA, an order of magnitude more Christians than atheists
accept evolution.

Which should tell them that it is nothing to do with atheism.

>> "We must concede that there are presently no
>> detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
>> of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
>> variety of wishful speculations."
>> ~ Franklin M. Harold,
>> Professor Emeritus
>> Biochemistry

The same old dishonest, out-of context, mined quote moved into
Andrew's own context.

Because "Darwinian" doesn't describe evolution per se, just the
natural selection component of the mechanisms which cause it.

And without a time machine, we have no way of knowing what the
selection pressures were at the dawn of life - even though it has been
duplicated in the lab.

[HVAC]

On 4/25/2015 9:26 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>> Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>>>
>>> Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
>>> species.
>>
>> Complete and utter uninformed...
>>
>> ...bullshit.
>
> He knows - he has been repeating this deliberate lie for many years to
> try and annoy a group for whom he has an irrational hate because they
> don't share the beliefs that are at the centre of his very being.
>
> Like far too many in-your-face Christian fundamentalists, he thinks
> it's a game to keep repeating the same old nonsense that takes no
> notice of the fact that his involuntary audience aren't even
> Christian.
>
> And that includes the lies he's been fed by dishonest creationist
> ministers who don't it as lying when it's to keep the sheep in the
> fold.

To me it comes down to the matter of who this supposed creator is and
why he thinks he is in charge. Like who is god to judge ME?

I ask this question of all believers and I get vacuum instead of answers.

I guess my questions are too disconcerting. And the believers ALL have
one common thread..The disconnect in the brain that makes them stop
thinking rationally and asking disconcerting questions of themselves.

I think this is called a 'leap of faith'. But as Mark Twain wrote,
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so".

[Andrew]

"HVAC" wrote in message news:mhfu35$45h$2...@dont-email.me...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Alan Baker" wrote:
>>> And evolution: that's as much a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
>>
>> Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>> Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
>> species.
>
> I've read the bible. Twice.

Praise God! You must be a very godly man.

> I didn't see that mentioned there.

It is not primarily a science book.

> Can you cite chapter and verse?

Chapter one in combination with
what we know about the laws of
genetics.

[benj]

On 04/25/2015 07:35 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 4/25/2015 3:46 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Alan Baker" wrote in message news:mhfe8l$ub1$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>>> And evolution: that's as much a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
>>
>> Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>>
>> Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
>> species.
>
>
> I've read the bible. Twice.
> I didn't see that mentioned there. Can you cite chapter and verse?
>
> I'll wait right here.

Who needs the bible when you have ME? I've already told you we define
God as everything and all the rules that govern it. Hence the "genetic
rules of evolution" are clearly GOD! Bwahahahaha!

As you were.

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

[hanson]

<andrew....@usa.net>; with lose screws "Andrew" wrote:
> ... our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>
hanson wrote:
What is this "our" shit? ...
Andrew speak only for yourself "and screws" that
are lose in your own head, until you can answer
"Who created your creator". Hint: your Grandpa.
>
Andy, listen up now:
======== Nobody is born religious ======
=== Religion is an acquired mental disease ===
= Religion is a tool used by the few to fuck the many =
>
Andy, you are one of the many. Pity... but ROTFLMAO
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[HVAC]

On 4/25/2015 10:30 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
>>> Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>>> Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
>>> species.
>>
>> I've read the bible. Twice.
>
> Praise God! You must be a very godly man.

Of course.

>> I didn't see that mentioned there.
>
> It is not primarily a science book.

Obviously.

>> Can you cite chapter and verse?
>
> Chapter one in combination with
> what we know about the laws of
> genetics.

Says nothing about evolution. Nothing about genetics.

However it DOES say that god mad man out of clay and then made woman
from that man's rib.

No, it's not a science book. It's more like a comic book.
A bad one. The bible is one of the most boring reads ever.

Even the parts they left out.

[Alan Baker]

Since you know nothing about the laws of genetics...

[benj]

On 04/25/2015 02:22 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 4/25/2015 10:30 AM, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>> Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>>>> Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
>>>> species.
>>>
>>> I've read the bible. Twice.
>>
>> Praise God! You must be a very godly man.
>
> Of course.
>
>>> I didn't see that mentioned there.
>>
>> It is not primarily a science book.
>
> Obviously.
>
>>> Can you cite chapter and verse?
>>
>> Chapter one in combination with
>> what we know about the laws of
>> genetics.
>
> Says nothing about evolution. Nothing about genetics.
>
> However it DOES say that god mad man out of clay and then made woman
> from that man's rib.
>
> No, it's not a science book. It's more like a comic book.
> A bad one. The bible is one of the most boring reads ever.
>
> Even the parts they left out.

Here's the secret, Hardblow...no, not for you as you are too ignorant to
understand what I'm about to say, but there are lurkers here who might
appreciate it!

Suppose there are a bunch of ignorant savages running around (you know
like you and your gummint pals) and then some aliens with extremely
advanced science land in their UFOs and begin talking to the savages.

Naturally they have a lot of questions to ask, but their ability to
understand the answers is rather limited (you know, like yours). But
they do the best they can and because the aliens are so advanced the
savages are sorely impressed with them. So impressed they feel that what
they've learned needs to be carefully preserved for future generations!
So they do the best they can trying to put it all down as best they
remembered it. And then generation after generation the savages keep
trying to preserve the writings because their ANCESTORS told them it was
VERY important. And so they do.

And cut to now. Then civilization has advanced and there are those now
among the ignorant savages who think they know it all! And they look at
the ancient writings and laugh and make fun of it and call it "comic
books" because they understand so little of what it actually is!

And THAT is the meaning of the scripture where it says the first shall
be last and the last shall be first and the smartest shall be the
dumbest and the dumbest shall be the smartest!

As I have said it so shall it BE!

[benj]

On 04/25/2015 02:29 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-04-25 14:30:42 +0000, Andrew said:
>
>> "HVAC" wrote in message news:mhfu35$45h$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Alan Baker" wrote:
>>>>> And evolution: that's as much a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly as our Creator has programmed it to be since the beginning.
>>>> Always within the genetic limits of the gene pool of a reproducing
>>>> species.
>>>
>>> I've read the bible. Twice.
>>
>> Praise God! You must be a very godly man.

<SNORT>!

>>> I didn't see that mentioned there.
>>
>> It is not primarily a science book.
>>
>>> Can you cite chapter and verse?
>>
>> Chapter one in combination with
>> what we know about the laws of
>> genetics.
>
> Since you know nothing about the laws of genetics...
>

[The Starmaker]

furthermore...
the title of
charles darwin's book
Origin of the species is a complete Lie.

There is no "Origin" in his book, no starting point, no beggining..no
explanation
of a starting point of life.

So, Atheism has no startng point.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Liar.

>There is no "Origin" in his book, no starting point, no beggining..no
>explanation
>of a starting point of life.

He didn't even pretend to do that. He was describing how species
originated, not life.

>So, Atheism has no startng point.

Why do you pretend people are atheist because of evolution?

They are nothing to do with each other.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:21:40 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

and when he open his mouth all anyone hears is coo coo coo coo... and
someone may glance around to see if there is a clock around, but no
one realises that it is just the starmaker falling yet evermore off
his rocker

[bil...@m.nu]

it is obvious that starmaker "believes" in evolution so then By his
words he is an atheist... LOL

[The Starmaker]

of course it goes without saying ...there is no difference between life
and species. They are both the same thing.

[benj]

Starfaker claimed to be Jewish, so that means he's not an atheist but a
hypocrite.

--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /

\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[Alan Baker]

Atheism isn't in any way dependent on one book by Charles Darwin.

[The Starmaker]

I *never* 'claimed' to be...Jewish. But you are always consistently
wrong, even though i don't know why.

I wonder what life is for you to see and say things wrong all the time?
Everyday must be a brand new day for you..

[William December Starr]

In article <b75njals00d0v2c0r...@4ax.com>,

Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> said:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:21:55 -0700, Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote:

[ re "Andrew" ]

> He knows - he has been repeating this deliberate lie for many
> years to try and annoy a group for whom he has an irrational
> hate because they don't share the beliefs that are at the
> centre of his very being.
>
> Like far too many in-your-face Christian fundamentalists, he
> thinks it's a game to keep repeating the same old nonsense that
> takes no notice of the fact that his involuntary audience
> aren't even Christian.
>
> And that includes the lies he's been fed by dishonest
> creationist ministers who don't it as lying when it's to keep
> the sheep in the fold.

I'm sure it's been quoted many times already, but:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is
rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks
the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to
its flock to claim victory."
-- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

-- wds

[The Starmaker]

...and besides, I don't understand the connection between atheistism and Jewish...Jewish is a race. You don't get a big nose by joining a jewish religion.

[The Starmaker]

charles darwin is british...atheism is a british disease.

[WangoTango]

In article <553A82...@ix.netcom.com>, star...@ix.netcom.com says...

> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

*Actually* it is based on the absence of a belief and the position on
science has nothing to do with it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

It knows that - it's an old troll.

[The Starmaker]

WangoTango wrote:
>
> In article <553A82...@ix.netcom.com>, star...@ix.netcom.com says...
> > Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>
> *Actually* it is based on the absence of a belief

do you believe that's true?

[bil...@m.nu]

as I have told you and I am sure we will all agree I believe you are
falling off your rocker

[The Starmaker]

my what???

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 10:50:43 AM UTC-7, The Starfaker wrote:
> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

No. You still, willfully, have it completely wrong.

What you want atheists to be:

People who hold the belief that god(s) doesn't(don't) exist.

What atheists think they are:

People who don't hold the belief that god(s) exist.

Case rejected due to the stoopidity of the complainant. Now shut the fuck up.


Mark L. Fergerson

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-04-29, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Case rejected due to the stoopidity of the complainant.
> Now shut the fuck up.

And speaking of which, an actually-on-topic looney case I was pointed at
today by friends, from January of this year:

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=217650

Safe for work. Rewards close reading. Tell us if Appendix A gets you.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-04-29, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Case rejected due to the stoopidity of the complainant.
> > Now shut the fuck up.
>
> And speaking of which, an actually-on-topic looney case I was pointed at
> today by friends, from January of this year:
>
> http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=217650
>
> Safe for work. Rewards close reading.

Well, if the Plaintiff can cite from Gilgamesh, Noah, Euclid, the Declaration, SWIV and so on, then it's only reasonable that the Conclusion may cite Fulton, Seward, Galileo &etc.

Also, I am tickled that the footnotes to several footnotes were omitted.

> Tell us if Appendix A gets you.

You means "Exhibit" A? Teh kyoot.

I'll note that the gondola of an airship is also referred to as the "crew car", so the Plaintiff should have left Disney alone and sued the Jesuit order since one of them holds precedence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#History


Mark L. Fergerson

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:i4qdnfKiXuS7md7I...@earthlink.com:

> On 2015-04-29, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Case rejected due to the stoopidity of the complainant.
>> Now shut the fuck up.
>
> And speaking of which, an actually-on-topic looney case I was
> pointed at today by friends, from January of this year:
>
> http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=217650
>
> Safe for work. Rewards close reading. Tell us if Appendix A gets
> you.
>

Reminds me of the ruling in a case involving (the judge though, he
wasn't really sure) obscure points of maritime law, in which he
admonished both attorneys for submitting briefs in crayon, and to not
run with scissors. One side apparently quoted a volume of the US Code
that doesn't exist, and the other quoted G. Gordon Liddy's
autobiography because Liddy was on a boat once.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[WangoTango]

In article <553EF4...@ix.netcom.com>, star...@ix.netcom.com
says...

Yes, I believe my absence of belief is true.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:13:28 -0700 (PDT), "nu...@bid.nes"
<Alie...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:bc37979a-6111-488c...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 10:50:43 AM UTC-7, The
> Starfaker wrote:

>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

> No. You still, willfully, have it completely wrong.

> What you want atheists to be:

> People who hold the belief that god(s) doesn't(don't) exist.

> What atheists think they are:

> People who don't hold the belief that god(s) exist.

Depends on the atheist: there certainly are
positive/strong/hard atheists. But he’s wrong either way.

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 1:38:12 PM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> Depends on the atheist: there certainly are
> positive/strong/hard atheists. But he's wrong either way.

You mean there are "weak" atheists?

This is sounding like the position one "good man" (according to Richard M. Nixon) expressed to his Polish-American son-in-law:

"An agnostic is just an atheist who ain't sure"

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 11:58:10 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:

> Everybody knows where you get your...
> 'atheist ideas' from..
> you get it from that
> monkey book by
> charles darwin.

Although it's the conventional received wisdom that you are totally wrong here,
I think that you're actually _less_ wrong than some replies claim.

It is true that many Christians accept the scientific account of evolution by
means of natural selection as a fact, and do not find it in conflict with their
faith.

And both atheism *and* the notion of living things having developed gradually
in some fashion has been around long before Darwin.

But Darwin pointed out the changes in breeds of cattle and dogs and so on that
human beings had produced by selective breeding - and he noted that the demands
of survival would, more slowly, but in the same way, be able to alter living
creatures.

(Incidentally, there's an essay by Stephen Jay Gould in which he pointed out
that a _creationist_ actually came up with natural selection before Darwin - as
a mechanism by which the characteristics of each species, fitted for its place
in nature, would be reinforced and preserved, rather than changed. And modern
understanding of the math of population genetics, not available in Darwin's
time, showed that - most of the time - the creationist, not Darwin, had the
right intuition about how natural selection affects large populations. But this
doesn't refute evolution... because small groups of creatures sometimes get
isolated, allowing speciation to take place.)

By giving a plausible mechanism for evolution, Darwin did indeed put a stake
through the heart of the famous "watchmaker" argument for a Creator, since the
intricacy and complexity of living beings was a well-known and obvious fact.
This did make atheism a much more reasonable opinion for a person to hold than
it had been.

John Savard

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 1 May 2015 13:14:51 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:8388e816-579a-459f...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 1:38:12 PM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> Depends on the atheist: there certainly are
>> positive/strong/hard atheists. But he's wrong either way.

> You mean there are "weak" atheists?

Yes. Many.

[...]

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 4:34:49 PM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> Yes. Many.

Actually, I was very unfair to you, since I think that I'm one of that number. I wouldn't call myself an "agnostic", since I don't think that the existence of God is at all likely or worth considering - but I admit that I can't _prove_ that God does not exist and thus can't claim absolute certainty or direct knowledge.

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:8bfa8dc1-80c7-445e...@googlegroups.com:

In common usage, that is, properly speaking, agnostic. Many atheists
feel an intense need to exaggerate their number by including
agnosticism as "weak atheism."

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 01 May 2015 16:33:04 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA48DA85E883...@69.16.179.42> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:8bfa8dc1-80c7-445e...@googlegroups.com:

>> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 4:34:49 PM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott
>> wrote:

>>> Yes. Many.

>> Actually, I was very unfair to you, since I think that
>> I'm one of that number. I wouldn't call myself an
>> "agnostic", since I don't think that the existence of
>> God is at all likely or worth considering - but I admit
>> that I can't _prove_ that God does not exist and thus
>> can't claim absolute certainty or direct knowledge.

> In common usage, that is, properly speaking, agnostic.
> Many atheists feel an intense need to exaggerate their
> number by including agnosticism as "weak atheism."

They aren’t the same. In particular, one can be an
agnostic (in the ‘I don’t know’ sense) and fall anywhere on
the scale in terms of belief in the likelihood of the
existence of a god or gods.

Nor is there only one kind of weak atheism or only one kind
of agnosticism.

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-05-01, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 1:38:12 PM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> Depends on the atheist: there certainly are
>> positive/strong/hard atheists. But he's wrong either way.
>
> You mean there are "weak" atheists?

Why yes. Some of them only believe _one_ god doesn't exist, for example.

The spectrum goes through an essential zero and then starts up again with
weak agnostics. (If you turn left at the zero you get gnosticism; if you
turn right you get shamanism.)

> This is sounding like the position one "good man" (according to Richard M.
> Nixon) expressed to his Polish-American son-in-law:
>
> "An agnostic is just an atheist who ain't sure"

Well, "doesn't think they know" is far more accurate.

[William December Starr]

In article <7vzzmy2xsj2j$.13ufrrsg...@40tude.net>,
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on the atheist: there certainly are
>>> positive/strong/hard atheists. But he's wrong either way.
>>
>> You mean there are "weak" atheists?
>
> Yes. Many.

The difference is that strong atheists bind protons together in the
nucleus, while weak ones just have something to do with radioactive
decay.

-- wds

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-05-02, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>> Depends on the atheist: there certainly are
>>>> positive/strong/hard atheists. But he's wrong either way.
>>>
>>> You mean there are "weak" atheists?
>>
>> Yes. Many.
>
> The difference is that strong atheists bind protons together in the
> nucleus, while weak ones just have something to do with radioactive decay.

Also, strong ones come in various colors. Apoplexy, you know.

Dave, and Terry thinks we can't do SCIENCE!!1! to it
\--

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 8:26:36 PM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-05-02, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
> >>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >>>> Depends on the atheist: there certainly are
> >>>> positive/strong/hard atheists. But he's wrong either way.
> >>>
> >>> You mean there are "weak" atheists?
> >>
> >> Yes. Many.
> >
> > The difference is that strong atheists bind protons together in the
> > nucleus, while weak ones just have something to do with radioactive decay.
>
> Also, strong ones come in various colors. Apoplexy, you know.

Many strong theists come in the same color.

> Dave, and Terry thinks we can't do SCIENCE!!1! to it

So theism is a quantum property with (basically) three states; theist, atheist, and an intermediate state which has been given various names. The two extreme states would have unit theological charge of opposite polarity; some of the intermediate states have indeterminate (or even zero) charge while others have fractional charge of either polarity.

Theists and atheists aren't quite antiparticles; their interactions produce varying amounts of sensible heat but they rarely mutually annihilate.

Which of the eigenstates of [various names] is its own antistate?

How to arrange them by energy? How to account for the strong theism of the recently converted? (Does that only apply to the previously strong, or weak, atheists/others?) Do strong theists who emit a certain amount of evangalions become weak theists? Does absorption of large quantities of evangelions actually drive conversion by itself or are there hidden variables?

Do atheists emit antievangelions?


Mark L. "quick, somebody draw a chart" Fergerson

[Poutnik]

Dne 24/04/2015 v 21:04 Alan Baker napsal(a):

> On 2015-04-24 17:51:26 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>
>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>>

>> (need i say more)?
>>
>> case fuckin closed.
>>
>> and that's that!
>
>
> No.
>
> Atheism is based on not believing in things for which there is no evidence.
>
> And that... ...is that.
>

No.

Atheism is the believe in non existence of non materialistic things with
no evidence of existance.

The truth its,
it triggers the same brain centers as theisms.

--
Poutnik the Wanderer

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mi53bm$nvc$1...@dont-email.me>,

Got any evidence for that bizarre assertion?

--

JD

eing open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 03 May 2015 14:13:41 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 24/04/2015 v 21:04 Alan Baker napsal(a):
>> On 2015-04-24 17:51:26 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>
>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>>>
>>> (need i say more)?
>>>
>>> case fuckin closed.
>>>
>>> and that's that!
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Atheism is based on not believing in things for which there is no evidence.
>>
>> And that... ...is that.
>>
>
>No.

Yet another arrogant, pig-ignorant, deliberately nasty, lying theist
who imagines he gets to tell us what out POV is even though he's not a
mind reader.

Deconstruct the word, imbecile... "a-theist": the absence of the
prefixed property which is theism.

So we're not theists.

But this is too hard for many stupid theists including this jerk.

_We_ get to tell theists what our position is, and this would even
happen if they didn't keep getting it wrong. They don't get to tell
us.

And they have no reason to be so nasty about it when they get
corrected.

>Atheism is the believe in non existence of non materialistic things with
>no evidence of existance.

What makes so many theists such nasty personally liars?

>The truth its,
>it triggers the same brain centers as theisms.

Liar.

We wouldn't even give a thought to gods if theists kept them insider
their religion, because they mean no more to us than Zeus, Odin,
Krishna, UFO abductions, Santa Claus and the Loch Ness monster do to
them (and you).

It's the behaviour of theists like you, who can't come to terms with
people in the real world beyond your religion, that are the issue -
not the putative existence of their god.

Grow up and stop being so deliberately stupid.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 03 May 2015 05:24:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <mi53bm$nvc$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dne 24/04/2015 v 21:04 Alan Baker napsal(a):
>> > On 2015-04-24 17:51:26 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>> >
>> >> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>> >>
>> >> (need i say more)?
>> >>
>> >> case fuckin closed.
>> >>
>> >> and that's that!
>> >
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > Atheism is based on not believing in things for which there is no evidence.
>> >
>> > And that... ...is that.
>> >
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Atheism is the believe in non existence of non materialistic things with
>> no evidence of existance.
>>
>> The truth its,
>> it triggers the same brain centers as theisms.
>
>
>Got any evidence for that bizarre assertion?

It's just another asshole doing his best to be an anal sphinctre by
telling us what a rectal orifice he is.

So he obviously wants to be treated as one.

[Poutnik]

Dne 03/05/2015 v 14:24 Jeanne Douglas napsal(a):

> In article <mi53bm$nvc$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The truth its,
>> it triggers the same brain centers as theisms.
>
> Got any evidence for that bizarre assertion?
>

Got any evidence to think I am a neurologist,
to have such evidence, making such experiments ?

It is a believe as any indirect referenced knowledge,
as I am not a neurologist.

It was mentioned in public interview
with a highly respected Czech neurologist Frantisek Koukolik.

--
Poutnik the Wanderer

[Poutnik]

Dne 03/05/2015 v 14:30 Christopher A. Lee napsal(a):

>
> Yet another arrogant, pig-ignorant, deliberately nasty, lying theist
> who imagines he gets to tell us what out POV is even though he's not a
> mind reader.
>
> Deconstruct the word, imbecile... "a-theist": the absence of the
> prefixed property which is theism.
>

Thank you kindly.

As your own words are the best evidence
to evaluate your personality.

--
Poutnik the Wanderer

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 03 May 2015 14:52:07 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 03/05/2015 v 14:24 Jeanne Douglas napsal(a):
>> In article <mi53bm$nvc$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The truth its,
>>> it triggers the same brain centers as theisms.
>>
>> Got any evidence for that bizarre assertion?
>>
>Got any evidence to think I am a neurologist,
>to have such evidence, making such experiments ?

Dishonesty noted.

>It is a believe as any indirect referenced knowledge,
>as I am not a neurologist.

Idiot.

>It was mentioned in public interview
>with a highly respected Czech neurologist Frantisek Koukolik.

And he was wrong.

If you were capable of coherent thought, you would understand the
world beyond your theist paradigm, and know that gods are merely
somebody else's religious belief that we wouldn't even give a thought
to, if theists had the commonsense and courtesy to keep them where
they belong.

But you have demonstrated you are incapable of rational thought.

[Malte Runz]

"Poutnik" skrev i meddelelsen news:mi53bm$nvc$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Dne 24/04/2015 v 21:04 Alan Baker napsal(a):
> > On 2015-04-24 17:51:26 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >
> >> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
> >>
> >> (need i say more)?
> >>
> >> case fuckin closed.
> >>
> >> and that's that!
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Atheism is based on not believing in things for which there is no
> > evidence.
> >
> > And that... ...is that.
> >
>
> No.
>
> Atheism is the believe in non existence of non materialistic things with
> no evidence of existance.

'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
non-existence of gods'
Can you see the difference?

>
> The truth its,
> it triggers the same brain centers as theisms.

Show me the scanning results.

I'm reading your posts from alt.atheism. Let me make a wild guess... you're
from rec.arts.sf.written?


--
Malte Runz

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:11:14 +0200, "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>"Poutnik" skrev i meddelelsen news:mi53bm$nvc$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Dne 24/04/2015 v 21:04 Alan Baker napsal(a):
>> > On 2015-04-24 17:51:26 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>> >
>> >> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>> >>
>> >> (need i say more)?
>> >>
>> >> case fuckin closed.
>> >>
>> >> and that's that!
>> >
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > Atheism is based on not believing in things for which there is no
>> > evidence.
>> >
>> > And that... ...is that.
>> >
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Atheism is the believe in non existence of non materialistic things with
>> no evidence of existance.
>
>'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
>non-existence of gods'
>Can you see the difference?

Either he can and he's being a deliberate jerk, or he can't and is
just plain stupid.

Either way the result is the same - there's something wrong with him
in one of two different ways.

>> The truth its,
>> it triggers the same brain centers as theisms.
>
>Show me the scanning results.
>
>I'm reading your posts from alt.atheism. Let me make a wild guess... you're
>from rec.arts.sf.written?

In other words, he's being a deliberate jerk.

[Malte Runz]

"The Starmaker" skrev i meddelelsen news:553B2D...@ix.netcom.com...

>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>
>

> Come on already...
> who do yous atheist think you're fooling?

>
> Everybody knows where you get your...
> 'atheist ideas' from..
> you get it from that
> monkey book by
> charles darwin.
>

> What yous are not aware
> about charles was that
> charles darwin was a very
> religious man.
>
> Then his daughter died
> and that's when he
> ran from religion
> and started hating God.
>
> So charles darwin
> came out with a
> 'explain away God book'...
> just to get some ...payback.
>
> What charles darwin and
> everyone else it seems not to know
> is that..there are
> "alternative explanations"
> for *everything* in the world
> and the universe.
>
> Atheism are just people
> who worship...
> The Monkey Book.
>
>
>
> The Starmaker

You're a troll, right?

--
Malte Runz

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Malte Runz" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

|'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
|non-existence of gods'
|Can you see the difference?

Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
The meaning is the same.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:19:29 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>
>
>U?ytkownik "Malte Runz" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup

>dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
>
>|'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
>|non-existence of gods'
>|Can you see the difference?
>
>Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
>The meaning is the same.

Only to a pig-ignorant, uneducated moron incapable of rational
thought.

[Malte Runz]

"Alan Baker" skrev i meddelelsen news:mhhhil$s0n$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> On 2015-04-25 20:21:40 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> > furthermore...
> > the title of
> > charles darwin's book
> > Origin of the species is a complete Lie.
> >
> > There is no "Origin" in his book, no starting point, no beggining..no
> > explanation
> > of a starting point of life.
> >
> > So, Atheism has no startng point.
>
> Atheism isn't in any way dependent on one book by Charles Darwin.

Neither is the Theory of Evolution. Darwin is no more an authority on
evolution as Isaac N. is on gravitational waves.

>

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"Maciej Wozniak" skrev i meddelelsen
news:mi5790$ue3$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
>
>
>
> Uzytkownik "Malte Runz" napisal w wiadomosci grup

> dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
>
> |'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
> |non-existence of gods'
> |Can you see the difference?
>
> Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
> The meaning is the same.

Read it again. Then read this:
http://www.atheistfaq.com/2008/02/whats-difference-between-weak-atheist.html
See!

It's quite basic stuff, and you appear to be a bit... unprepared.


--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"Malte Runz" skrev i meddelelsen
news:55463bb7$0$23218$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

> Atheism isn't in any way dependent on one book by Charles Darwin.
>
> Neither is the Theory of Evolution. Darwin is no more an authority on

> evolution [than] Isaac N. is on gravitational waves.


--
Malte Runz

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Malte Runz" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:554640ec$0$23214$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

"Maciej Wozniak" skrev i meddelelsen
news:mi5790$ue3$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
>
>
>
> Uzytkownik "Malte Runz" napisal w wiadomosci grup
> dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
>
> |'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
> |non-existence of gods'
> |Can you see the difference?
>
> Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
> The meaning is the same.

|Read it again. Then read this:
|http://www.atheistfaq.com/2008/02/whats-difference-between-weak-atheist.html
|See!

I see. Someone has written something!!!! Ooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

[Malte Runz]

"Maciej Wozniak" skrev i meddelelsen

news:mi5fmd$gbe$1...@node2.news.atman.pl...

>
>
>
> Uzytkownik "Malte Runz" napisal w wiadomosci grup
> dyskusyjnych:554640ec$0$23214$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Maciej Wozniak" skrev i meddelelsen
> news:mi5790$ue3$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
> >
> >
> >
> > Uzytkownik "Malte Runz" napisal w wiadomosci grup
> > dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> >
> >
> > |'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
> > |non-existence of gods'
> > |Can you see the difference?
> >
> > Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
> > The meaning is the same.
>
> |Read it again. Then read this:
> |http://www.atheistfaq.com/2008/02/whats-difference-between-weak-atheist.html
> |See!
>
> I see. Someone has written something!!!! Ooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

And that someone is able to understand things that you aren't. Trust me,
you're like the colorblind, who can't destinguish between green and blue.


--
Malte Runz

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Malte Runz" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:55464404$0$23232$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

>
> |Read it again. Then read this:
> |http://www.atheistfaq.com/2008/02/whats-difference-between-weak-atheist.html
> |See!
>
> I see. Someone has written something!!!! Ooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

|And that someone is able to understand things that you aren't. Trust me,
|you're like the colorblind, who can't destinguish between green and blue.

Sorry, poor idiot. You're not looking trustworthy.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 7:07:56 AM UTC-6, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 2015 14:52:07 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >It was mentioned in public interview
> >with a highly respected Czech neurologist Frantisek Koukolik.
>
> And he was wrong.

There are videos of lectures by František Koukolík on YouTube, in which,
however, he is speaking in Czech. So I presume he lives in the Czech republic.

This could explain his results, since it's entirely plausible that Marxism
could involve the same parts of the brain as religious belief.

In any case, that atheism and religious belief are analogous is not something
freethinkers should take as a threatening assertion. It doesn't imply that
atheism depends on credulously accepting a body of doctrine as true without
adequate evidence.

I would think that "religious belief", though, differs in character, and may
involve different parts of the brain, in, say, a Fundamentalist on the one
hand, and a member of a "mainstream" church on the other. It wouldn't surprise
me in the least that, say, a Unitarian is using the same parts of his brain to
think about his ideas of the ultimate nature of reality and ethics as an
atheist might.

John Savard

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 17:43:10 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>
>
>U?ytkownik "Malte Runz" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup

Idiot.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 18:01:18 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>
>
>U?ytkownik "Malte Runz" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup

Liar.

But then you're a troll doing what trolls do.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but that might be true for some.

It is far from true for all.

I don't believe a god exists in exactly the same way I don't believe in
Santa Clause.

[Alan Baker]

No.

The meaning is NOT the same.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 10:35:25 -0700, Alan Baker <em...@domain.com>
wrote:

Theists refuse to accept this and often even go as far as telling you
you're lying to yourself - but the real problem is that they can't see
beyond their religion to understand the world and people outside it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 10:37:04 -0700, Alan Baker <em...@domain.com>
wrote:

>On 2015-05-03 13:19:29 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak said:
>
>>
>>
>> U?ytkownik "Malte Runz" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup

>> dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>
>> |'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
>> |non-existence of gods'
>> |Can you see the difference?
>>
>> Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
>> The meaning is the same.

Bullshit.

Anybody with a basic education in logic knows that for the general
case, ~f(x) is not the same as f(~x).

>No.
>
>The meaning is NOT the same.

It's like saying that if you don't vote Democrat you vote Republican
when there are all sorts of other possibilities - you voted for an
independent, you might not be a citizen, you might not have been able
to make it to the polling station because your car broke down, you
might be a genuine abstainer, you might simply not be interested
because whoever you vote for, the government still gets in, etc.

Similarly there is a whole slew of possibilities for not believing in
g/God(s) - and believing they don't exist, is just one of them.

Others include...

"What's God?"

"Never heard of it"

"Wouldn't even give it a thought if theists kept it where it belongs"

"It's just part of somebody else's religious belief system so it's not
in my worldview as something that could or could not exist"

and my own one: "I wasn't raised to believe in any god" which is a
subset of the previous one..

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Alan Baker" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:mi5mc0$h4l$2...@news.datemas.de...

Yes.
The meaning IS the same.
You see, there are three possibilities:
1)You believe existence of god/s
2)You believe non-existence of god/s
3)You have no opinion in subject of existence/non-existence of god/s.

When You're 3 You say neither 'I do not believe in the existence of gods'
nor 'I believe in the non-existence of gods'. You simply say nothing about
it.

Meaning of both phrases is the same. They both mean You're 2.

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-05-03 18:15:38 +0000, Maciej Woźniak said:

>
>
> Użytkownik "Alan Baker" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:mi5mc0$h4l$2...@news.datemas.de...
>
> On 2015-05-03 13:19:29 +0000, Maciej Woźniak said:
>
>>
>>
>> Użytkownik "Malte Runz" napisał w wiadomości grup >
>> dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>
>> |'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
>> |non-existence of gods'
>> |Can you see the difference?
>>
>> Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
>> The meaning is the same.
>
> |No.
> |The meaning is NOT the same.
>
> Yes.
> The meaning IS the same.
> You see, there are three possibilities:
> 1)You believe existence of god/s
> 2)You believe non-existence of god/s
> 3)You have no opinion in subject of existence/non-existence of god/s.

Nope. You are simply wrong.

>
> When You're 3 You say neither 'I do not believe in the existence of gods'

Yes, actually. I do say that.

I do not believe in the existence of gods in precisely the same terms
as I don't believe in fairies.

> nor 'I believe in the non-existence of gods'. You simply say nothing about
> it.
>
> Meaning of both phrases is the same. They both mean You're 2.

Nope.

[The Starmaker]

there is no such thing as gravitational waves...

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Christopher·A·Lee wrote:
> [Christians] can't see beyond their religion to understand

> the world and people outside it.

No, they (subconciously) ·chose· not to see it.

Likewise, you (subconciously) believe that you have "free will",
despite the evidence.

Because the illusion of free·will requires ignorance,
people cling to it... and nothing you say or do will ever change that.

For better or worse, nature created Christians and Muslims.

[Greg Goss]

Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:


>It's like saying that if you don't vote Democrat you vote Republican
>when there are all sorts of other possibilities - you voted for an
>independent, you might not be a citizen, you might not have been able
>to make it to the polling station because your car broke down, you
>might be a genuine abstainer, you might simply not be interested
>because whoever you vote for, the government still gets in, etc.

Our local jurisdiction (Alberta) is having an election on Tuesday.
Because of some odd stuff at CRA, I expect to work a fifteen hour day
on Tuesday. Fortunately, we have well-setup early polling.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:

>The meaning IS the same.
>You see, there are three possibilities:
>1)You believe existence of god/s
>2)You believe non-existence of god/s
>3)You have no opinion in subject of existence/non-existence of god/s.
>
>When You're 3 You say neither 'I do not believe in the existence of gods'
>nor 'I believe in the non-existence of gods'. You simply say nothing about
>it.
>
>Meaning of both phrases is the same. They both mean You're 2.

There is a whole continuum between 2 and 3, and probably between 1 and
3 as well. Or you can assign that entire continuum to 3 and leave the
defined positions to the fundies on either side. It sounds like
several people in this thread are doing the latter.

I "lean towards" 2, but don't get dogmatic about (anymore). In the
past I've been a non-proselytizing Christian, a fundamentalist
proselytizing atheist, a bored agnostic, and now I'm far enough
towards 2 that I call myself "an atheist", but I'm nowhere near what I
was in the late seventies or late eighties as a hard-line atheist.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Greg·Goss concludes:

> I'm nowhere near what I was in the late seventies or late eighties
> as a hard-line atheist.

Like "God" (nature), you have no "free will".

God is nature, nothing more, nothing less.
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

We have been programmed to consume,
just like anything else that's (notionally) "alive",
including the sun and/or cars.

Plants need humans to spread their seed;
so, spontaneously, we were created.

[The Starmaker]

duke wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 May 2015 14:42:48 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dne 24/04/2015 v 21:07 Sam Wormley napsal(a):

> >> On 4/24/15 12:51 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
> >>
> >>

> >> No -- non-theists don't base anything on beliefs
> >>
> >
> >Atheism is belief there are no gods. *]
>
> Nope. It's denial of the existence of God almighty. Then you ask them what
> evidence they have for their being no God, and they go silent.

Being no God, and denial of a God is two different things.

>
> If they simply are unsure of the evidence as 100% of these losers are, they are
> technically agnostics.


Not believing in God doesn't make them losers...Atheistism is just 'another' belief system.



Inside every atheist is a God dying to come out of the closet.

[The Starmaker]

Atheism is very much like...science fiction.



They take God...and try to draw Him...as a imaginary fictional character.

[William December Starr]

In article <55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
"Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> said:

[ addressing "Poutnik" skrev i meddelelsen news:mi53bm$nvc$1...@dont-email.me... ]

> I'm reading your posts from alt.atheism. Let me make a wild
> guess... you're from rec.arts.sf.written?

Oh no. We've got our share of freakazoids, no question about it,
but this guy isn't one of ours.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mi5790$ue3$1...@node1.news.atman.pl>,

=?iso-8859-2?Q?Maciej_Wo=BCniak?= <mlwo...@wp.pl> said:

>> 'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
>> non-existence of gods'
>> Can you see the difference?
>
> Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
> The meaning is the same.

You're either lying or stupid. I'm finding it hard to care which.

-- wds

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 3 May 2015 22:11:26 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

He's both,

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 20:15:38 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>U?ytkownik "Alan Baker" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup
>dyskusyjnych:mi5mc0$h4l$2...@news.datemas.de...
>

>On 2015-05-03 13:19:29 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak said:
>
>>
>>

>> U?ytkownik "Malte Runz" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup

>> dyskusyjnych:55461e73$0$23225$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>
>> |'I do not believe in the existence of gods' vs. 'I believe in the
>> |non-existence of gods'
>> |Can you see the difference?
>>
>> Well, some letters are differently ordered, for sure.
>> The meaning is the same.
>
>|No.
>|The meaning is NOT the same.
>
>Yes.

Don't be so fucking stupid.

>The meaning IS the same.

Are you lying because you're a jerk, or really an idiot?

>You see, there are three possibilities:
>1)You believe existence of god/s
>2)You believe non-existence of god/s
>3)You have no opinion in subject of existence/non-existence of god/s.

No, moron.

Gods don't mean the same thing outside the theist's belief system that
they do inside it.

Outside it, they're merely something somebody else believes.

Not even something that could or could not exist.

Why don't you use your allegedly god-given brain - assuming it
functions at all?

>When You're 3 You say neither 'I do not believe in the existence of gods'
>nor 'I believe in the non-existence of gods'. You simply say nothing about
>it.

When you're a fucking moron like you are, you nastily tell us we hold
views that we don't.

>Meaning of both phrases is the same. They both mean You're 2.

No, deliberately nasty liar.

[The Starmaker]

Sesiom wrote:

>
> On 5/3/2015 6:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> >> Neither is the Theory of Evolution. Darwin is no more an authority on
> >> evolution as Isaac N. is on gravitational waves.
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Malte Runz
> >
> >
> > there is no such thing as gravitational waves...
> >
>

> prove it or shut up.


but, but there isn't no such thing as gravitational waves...where did
you get the idea it exist?