Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:07:48 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:57:26 -0500, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:51:57 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:39:48 -0700, lal_truckee
>>><lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/28/15 4:14 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> God also knows that if a person gets drunk then leans back over the
>>>>> fence around a high rise balcony, loses his balance and falls to the
>>>>> pavement below this will kill the person. That is, God's natural law
>>>>> of gravity will kill that person. Does this make God a murderer?
>>>>
>>>>Since there is no god, we'll have to chalk up that one to Newton.
>>>>
>>>Are you implying that Newton created the law of gravity?
>>
>>Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation. There is a popular
>>story that Newton was sitting under an apple tree, an apple fell on
>>his head, and he suddenly thought of the Universal Law of Gravitation.
>>
>>so yeah he did actually make the law of gravity
>>
>Had the law of gravity not already existed at the time the apple fell
>upon Newton's head it would not have fallen. In fact, ole Newton
>couldn't have sat under an apple tree. Instead he would have floated
>away into space.

Jilted John was right...

Gordon is a moron:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN45OjB-cCU#t=01m20s

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:10:48 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:55:25 -0500, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:14:10 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:52:25 -0500, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:02:11 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:54:09 +0200, "Malte Runz"
>>>>><malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Gordon" skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>news:dni0padre2kpd8623...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God has not murdered anyone. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Excuse me if I'm off topic here, but I'd like you to explain what you
>>>>>>believe was God's role in the Flood... incident, if you don't mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>The flood and many other Bible stories are allegories. We have to
>>>>>comprehend these allegories in the sense to which they are related.
>>>>>
>>>>>What the flood story tells us is that when people at large turn away
>>>>>from God and go their own way they will eventually end up in a severe
>>>>>situation.
>>>>
>>>>I thought god gave people the freedom to choose what they wanted.....
>>>>it lied...
>>>>If your god is all knowing then it knew that he would make the flood
>>>>so therefor your god is a pre meditated murderer

>>>>
>>>God also knows that if a person gets drunk then leans back over the
>>>fence around a high rise balcony, loses his balance and falls to the
>>>pavement below this will kill the person. That is, God's natural law
>>>of gravity will kill that person. Does this make God a murderer?
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>This is somewhat like walking over the rim of the Grand Canyon without
>>>>>a parachute or any other such means for survival. God's law of gravity
>>>>>will surely kill a person who does something like this. Does this mean
>>>>>that God will murder a person who does something like this?
>>
>>sooooo... what you are saying is that your god is a drunk also......
>>go figure
>>
>What I'm saying is that God's

What you're saying is that you're an in-your-face moron.

[bil...@m.nu]

>What I'm saying is that God's natural laws and God's spiritual laws
>have some common attributes. Violate either and trouble is likely to
>occur.

no what you are actually saying that a sky fairy is the lord commander
of the universe... doesnt that about sum it up?

jean luc better move over theres a new captain and the new captain is
a murdering bastard so yall better watch out


>
>It is easy to use God's natural laws effects to get the idea of how
>God's spiritual laws affect us....different, but similar in many
>respects.


you idiot

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

"HVAC" replied (to Gordon):
> > Pre-programming us as puppets would never
> > have given us absolute sovereignty.
>
> I am already sovereign.
> I can do whatever I choose.

You _must_ eat, breathe, drink, shit, piss,
hold your head up, stay cool, stay safe, etc.

I command you.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
My favorite kook is "HVAC".

First he'll post, "I am God, all powerful",
then he'll follow it up with: "There is no God".

Like the Bible, his "logic" isn't self_consistent.

He's as bad, or worse, than any bible thumper I've ever met;
he thumps his drivel.

[HVAC]

What's up Ralph?




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

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-06-28, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> said:
>> God is presently in the process of separating all that is good
>> from all that is not good (evil).
>
> How's he going to separate himself from himself?

With a REALLY REALLY fine sieve.

Capable of straining out EVERY single atome of Justice!!1! from the universe.

Dave, primally speaking
--
\/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.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:44:55 -0500, David DeLaney
<davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2015-06-28, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> said:
>>> God is presently in the process of separating all that is good
>>> from all that is not good (evil).
>>
>> How's he going to separate himself from himself?
>
>With a REALLY REALLY fine sieve.
>
>Capable of straining out EVERY single atome of Justice!!1! from the universe.

The sieve of Eratosthenes.

Which is actually on topic for rec.arts.sf.written. Fans of Frederick
Pohl will spot the reference.

[Olrik]

Le 2015-06-29 11:07, Gordon a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:57:26 -0500, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:51:57 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:39:48 -0700, lal_truckee
>>> <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/15 4:14 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> God also knows that if a person gets drunk then leans back over the
>>>>> fence around a high rise balcony, loses his balance and falls to the
>>>>> pavement below this will kill the person. That is, God's natural law
>>>>> of gravity will kill that person. Does this make God a murderer?
>>>>

>>>> Since there is no god, we'll have to chalk up that one to Newton.
>>>>
>>> Are you implying that Newton created the law of gravity?
>>
>> Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation. There is a popular
>> story that Newton was sitting under an apple tree, an apple fell on
>> his head, and he suddenly thought of the Universal Law of Gravitation.
>>
>> so yeah he did actually make the law of gravity
>>
> Had the law of gravity not already existed at the time the apple fell
> upon Newton's head it would not have fallen. In fact, ole Newton
> couldn't have sat under an apple tree. Instead he would have floated
> away into space.
>

Leave your brain to science. PLEASE! Many thanks!

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

[benj]

WORSE.



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

[The Starmaker]

HVAC wrote:
>
> On 6/29/2015 8:13 AM, Gordon wrote:
> >
> >> Wait. So god kills every person on earth except for Noah and his
> >> family... Drowns them like rats. And you want to blame Satan?
> >>
> >> And even if I accept your postulate that Satan was to blame, who created
> >> Satan in the first place? Who 'allowed' Satan to exist?
> >>
> >> You religious freaks are funny.
> >>
> > How would any of us learn enough about the cumulative effects of sin
> > and rebellion had God not allowed Satan to explore this realm while we
> > humans are here for the learning process.
>
> As an American, I was forged in the fire of rebellion.
> It is at the heart of our democracy. Are you claiming that the USA is
> satanic?
>
> > God wants us to mature to a
> > level where we can be granted immortality and absolute sovereignty.
> > This could never be done without sending us through this mortal phase
> > where we are exposed, individually and collectively, to the cumulative
> > effects of sin and rebellion.
>
> Ok, so what's the problem then? We can sin and do whatever, and god sits
> in silent approval. Party on Wayne

>
> > Pre-programming us as puppets would never have given us absolute
> > sovereignty.
>

> I am already sovereign. I can do whatever I choose. And there is NOTHING
> your god can do about it. He is impotent.
>
> > Intimidating us into compliance would never have given us absolute
> > sovereignty.
>
> OK so then I can treat god EXACTLY as if he doesn't exist. Works for me.
>
> > Get down and get dirty, hands on learning is the only way God could
> > mature us to the level He wants us to achieve.
>
> But honestly, who gives a fuck what GOD wants? Who elected HIM god?
>
> I sit in judgement of your god. And I find him guilty of crimes against
> humanity, murder, hate crimes, incitement to riot, perjury, rape and the
> creation of all the bad that exists in the world.


There is no Bad in the world..

Name one thing you consider...Bad?


Murder is a legal term...
Hate crime? Is that like Love crime? How can hate be a crime? What's next, you're gonna make love a crime??
incitement to riot?? you're talking about jusst having a little fun in the streets...
perjury? sounds like a legal term...
rape? just a guy trying to make babies...


You got over six billion people on earth...you mean to tell me all those girls said Yes?

It's the girls who say "No" who are the most fun...

Be real...You ask a girl to have sex with you and she says Yes, ...where is the fun in that?

She says "No", that's when the fun begins...

She says "Stop!", the fun gets even better...it's called, foreplay.

Tell me one thing that's Bad? Stealing?? What I want, I take.

I see birds steal food from other birds...is that stealing?...or how Nature works?

[Kevrob]

Somebody did a YASID here long and long...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/TOXk6VMZ78Y

Kevin R

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:39:29 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>There is no Bad in the world..
>Name one thing you consider...Bad?

abortion of the unborn.

>Murder is a legal term...
>Hate crime? Is that like Love crime? How can hate be a crime? What's next, you're gonna make love a crime??
>incitement to riot?? you're talking about jusst having a little fun in the streets...
>perjury? sounds like a legal term...
>rape? just a guy trying to make babies...

>You got over six billion people on earth...you mean to tell me all those girls said Yes?
>It's the girls who say "No" who are the most fun...
>
>Be real...You ask a girl to have sex with you and she says Yes, ...where is the fun in that?
>
>She says "No", that's when the fun begins...
>
>She says "Stop!", the fun gets even better...it's called, foreplay.
>
>Tell me one thing that's Bad? Stealing?? What I want, I take.

>I see birds steal food from other birds...is that stealing?...or how Nature works?

Did the birds with the food also own the food?

the dukester, American-American

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

[The Starmaker]

duke wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:39:29 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is no Bad in the world..
> >Name one thing you consider...Bad?
>
> abortion of the unborn.

I don't know what "abortion" means...

>
> >Murder is a legal term...
> >Hate crime? Is that like Love crime? How can hate be a crime? What's next, you're gonna make love a crime??
> >incitement to riot?? you're talking about jusst having a little fun in the streets...
> >perjury? sounds like a legal term...
> >rape? just a guy trying to make babies...
>
> >You got over six billion people on earth...you mean to tell me all those girls said Yes?
> >It's the girls who say "No" who are the most fun...
> >
> >Be real...You ask a girl to have sex with you and she says Yes, ...where is the fun in that?
> >
> >She says "No", that's when the fun begins...
> >
> >She says "Stop!", the fun gets even better...it's called, foreplay.
> >
> >Tell me one thing that's Bad? Stealing?? What I want, I take.
>
> >I see birds steal food from other birds...is that stealing?...or how Nature works?
>
> Did the birds with the food also own the food?

What the birds want, they take....they own it.

[The Starmaker]

Smiler wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:29:52 -0400, HVAC wrote:
>
> > On 6/30/2015 6:59 AM, talishi wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Believe in god or spend an eternity burning in flame.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It says "follow", not believe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
> >>>> that believeth not shall be damned.
> >>>>
> >>> Ummmmmm, Mark was misquoted?
> >>
> >> That's the Duke Dodge, HVAC. He stakes out something like, "No man has
> >> ever seen God". We then offer numerous scriptures where God talks to
> >> Abram or Moses face to face, then Duke says the scripture is in error.
> >> Which, by the way, is perfectly fine by us!
> >
> > All kooks lie. But they are lying to themselves. When they get to a
> > logical contradiction, they shut down the thinking part of their brain.
>
> What 'thinking part of their brain'?
>
> > The reason? Because their entire belief system is a house of cards.
> >
> > If they start actually THINKING, the house will collapse.
> >
> > This goes for not only god freaks, but for believers in any paranormal
> > shit. ESP, ghosts, aliens...All are bullshit. All built on a house of
> > cards.
>
> I can consider the possible existence of extraterrestrial aliens.
> That any have visited this planet is where the bullshit starts.


What makes you think you're not a vistor on this planet? The way you'all are acting is, as if...
you were put here by...mistake.

Someone made a mistake...and you got here. You don't belong here.


And nobody is going to come here and take you back.


The ship is not coming..

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:24:32 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>

wrote:

>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:39:29 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There is no Bad in the world..
>> >Name one thing you consider...Bad?
>>
>> abortion of the unborn.
>
>I don't know what "abortion" means...

Then you're in the wrong group.

>> >Murder is a legal term...
>> >Hate crime? Is that like Love crime? How can hate be a crime? What's next, you're gonna make love a crime??
>> >incitement to riot?? you're talking about jusst having a little fun in the streets...
>> >perjury? sounds like a legal term...
>> >rape? just a guy trying to make babies...
>>
>> >You got over six billion people on earth...you mean to tell me all those girls said Yes?
>> >It's the girls who say "No" who are the most fun...
>> >
>> >Be real...You ask a girl to have sex with you and she says Yes, ...where is the fun in that?
>> >
>> >She says "No", that's when the fun begins...
>> >
>> >She says "Stop!", the fun gets even better...it's called, foreplay.
>> >
>> >Tell me one thing that's Bad? Stealing?? What I want, I take.
>>
>> >I see birds steal food from other birds...is that stealing?...or how Nature works?
>>
>> Did the birds with the food also own the food?

>What the birds want, they take....they own it.

None own it.

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

In what way is that a criticism? Explain.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between
alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and
sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor
science.

We're simply not theists - that's all,

When one has no reason to believe something, then one doesn't.

Because we are outside the theist's religion, we cannot be described
according to presumptions only granted inside it.

Which is the biggest reason theists always get our position wrong.

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>>
>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain.
>
> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between
> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and
> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor
> science.

Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong
atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any
god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a
belief in a god.)

Stop spewing nonsense.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:06:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois

<barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:

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

I knew I shouldn't have replied.

But...

Is "not collecting stamps" a negative hobby on your planet?

But in any case, the word "god" doesn't even mean the same to atheists
as theists.

"No god" is just a throwaway remark in the same vein as "no fairies at
the bottom of the garden", "no ghosts", "no UFO abductions", etc.

What do you imagine qualifies you to tell atheists you know our
position on these things better than we do ourselves?

>Stop spewing nonsense.

Where did I do that, troll?

<plonk>

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

On 8/11/2015 8:14 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:06:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>>>>
>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain.
>>>
>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between
>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and
>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor
>>> science.
>>
>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong
>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any
>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a
>> belief in a god.)
>
> I knew I shouldn't have replied.
>
> But...

But you can't help but be reflexively stupid.

> Is "not collecting stamps" a negative hobby on your planet?

Heard that gag already.

[niunian]

Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no
God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they
believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out
of an awkward position.

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

On 8/11/2015 8:14 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:06:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.
>>>>
>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain.
>>>
>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between
>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and
>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor
>>> science.
>>
>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong
>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any
>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a
>> belief in a god.)
>
> I knew I shouldn't have replied.
>
> But...
>
> Is "not collecting stamps" a negative hobby on your planet?

As I said in an earlier reply, I've heard that gag before. Just to show
that I'm reasonable, I'll give it a little more serious consideration.

There are a couple of problems with the gag. First of all, it's just
snark. Secondly, it's stale - I've heard or read literally hundreds of
militant atheists say it (proving that militant atheists are no less
unoriginal than just about everyone else.) Finally, it's just an
invalid analogy - it fails utterly.

I should state at this time that I'm a non-militant "weak" atheist, not
a theist or any other kind of holder of positive religious belief.
However, I find this Christian's explanation of why the analogy fails to
be eminently reasonable and persuasive, that is, right:
http://citybibleforum.org/city/melbourne/blog/how-stamp-collecting-analogy-fails

This is always the problem for reasonable people like me dealing with
unreasonable militant true-believers like you: you toss off a
three-second bit of snark and think you have nuked the opposition, and
then stand around admiring yourself in the mirror as all narcissists do
(atheism is not narcissistic, but all militant atheists are
narcissists.) Reasonable people like me are at a disadvantage in
dealing with unreasonable snark-tossers like you, because it takes time
and effort to develop the reasonable counter to your three-second one liner.

>
> Where did I do that, troll?
>
> <plonk>

Ah! I see you've conceded defeat already. I suppose my demolition of
your bit of snark won't be seen by the snark-tosser, then. Pity.

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong"
atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking
a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at
least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it.

I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly
consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who
repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting
stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat
the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based
religion" bullshit.

[niunian]

I don't blame people who go out of their way to avoid denying God. I
think it's a very good sign.

>
> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly
> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who
> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting
> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat
> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based
> religion" bullshit.
>

The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different
functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and
center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One
can not live his life without the lord and center of his life. If one
does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to believe the lord in
somewhere else who functions as the center of one's life. That's why
there are people who believe that money and power are their gods. They
actually do live their life for money and power.

[William December Starr]

In article <mqd3fp$j6s$2...@dont-email.me>,

Oh look a troll, yawn

-- wds

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

<yawn> billee loses again.

[Tom McDonald]

What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not
collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such?
Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and a thought- and conversation-starter.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:24:03 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different
>functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and
>center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One
>can not live his life without the lord and center of his life.

But, see, that's where your whole argument collapses, because not
everyone thinks that way. I have no lord.

> If one
>does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to believe the lord in
>somewhere else who functions as the center of one's life.

Why? Do you have any evidence of this other than personal anecdote?
You're assuming your conclusion.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a
"strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid.
For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively
believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure
faith.

For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those
things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that
are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't.

The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is
that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby.

> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and

It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure.

[Tom McDonald]

So fucking what?

>> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and
>
> It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure.

Nope. It's right on. You, however, are a write-off.
>

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

So, that's why it fails.

>>> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and
>>
>> It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

[William December Starr]

In article <mqd7g4$4i0$1...@dont-email.me>,

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:

> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different
> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and
> center of a person's life. One can live his life without a
> stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of
> his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to
> believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center of
> one's life.

I do not believe that that statement is true.

-- wds

[Homer Stille Cummings]

It isn't true, but it doesn't change the fact that the "not collecting
stamps" gag is worthless.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
<barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:

asking starfuck to explain anything is about like asing a blind person
to explain blue

[bil...@m.nu]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:06:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois

<barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote:

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

I dont even think that is true, you can not in any way be an atheist
and have a belief in any god. Strong or weak doest matter, if you are
an atheist you have no belief in god weather strong or weak

[bil...@m.nu]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:43:09 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois

I am sure this strong weak crap was crafted by theists to be able to
feel better about themselves

[bil...@m.nu]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:24:03 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

that doesnt exist

>center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One
>can not live his life without the lord and center of his life. If one

wanna bet I live without fantises every day

<snip gobbley gook>

[bil...@m.nu]

On 11 Aug 2015 15:38:37 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

its not in any shape or form.... later he will start talking about
some guy name jesus who just also happens to be this mystical fairy
beling that can do harry potter tricks

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

No, that's wrong. It's a distinction made by thoughtful atheists.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois

huh?

>"strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid.
> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively
>believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure
>faith.

since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in
something then that statement is totally wrong, also that sounds a bit
more like agnostic, sorry

>
>For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
>as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
>about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those

I think you need help with the english language, no belief means there
is no belief at all, quit spewing crap

>things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that
>are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't.

U just are not making much sense

>
>The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is
>that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby.

no it means the person would rather do nothing than listen to you or
you kind talking

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not,
cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of
something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for you.

>>
>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those
>
> I think you need help with the english language,

No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on
the other hand...not so good.

[Greg Goss]

the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois

>>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid.
>>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively
>>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure
>>> faith.
>>
>>
>> since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in
>> something then that statement is totally wrong,
>
>It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not,
>cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of
>something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for you.

I expect that Bilgat missed or tuned-out the "strong" up there.

To some people, agnostic and apatheist aren't really atheists. I
don't really hold an opinion on the definition argument.

I've been a fundamentalist proselytizing atheist when I was younger.
I still call myself atheist, but am probably somewhere between
apatheist and agnostic.

To me, "not believing" is pretty much "apatheist".
"You haven't convinced me. But I don't really care that much unless
you try to force beliefs on me". Without the forcing, I managed to be
an atheist happily married to a fundy Christian for seven years.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:d2vc2n...@mid.individual.net:

> the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>>On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese
>>> LaBourgeois
>
>>>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it
>>>> weren't invalid.
>>>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She
>>>> positively
>>>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a
>>>> matter of pure faith.
>>>
>>>
>>> since positively believing in something would mean they do
>>> believe in something then that statement is totally wrong,
>>
>>It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does
>>not, cannot, exist. They positively believe in the
>>non-existence of something. That's not so hard to understand -
>>well, maybe it is for you.
>
> I expect that Bilgat missed or tuned-out the "strong" up there.
>
> To some people, agnostic and apatheist aren't really atheists.
> I don't really hold an opinion on the definition argument.

The confusion is the result of a small minority insisting on using
the same word to describe two very different mindsets, and refusing
to use the commonly used word for one of them, and then
"forgetting" to use the qualifer that distinguishes betwen them.

Makes 'em look chilcish and stupid, about 99% of the time
(qualifier used above notwithstanding).

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[niunian]

That is expected. There is no surprise there, but why snip off the rest
of my post? Is there something you don't want to see and can not really
deal with in the rest of what I said? That is not very honest of you. Is
ethics never part of consideration in an atheist life?

[niunian]

On 2015-08-12 01:36 AM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:24:03 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different
>> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and
>> center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One
>> can not live his life without the lord and center of his life.
>
> But, see, that's where your whole argument collapses, because not
> everyone thinks that way. I have no lord.

I'm not really talking about thinking. I'm talking about living and how
a person lives his life determines without exception what kind of
God/god he or she worships. God is not another kind of "stamp". God is
the center of a person's life. The person, regardless being aware of the
concept and meaning of God/god or not, will have a center of his/her
life as long as he/she is alive. This is a fact of life for everybody
regardless being religious or not.

>
>> If one
>> does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to believe the lord in
>> somewhere else who functions as the center of one's life.
>
> Why? Do you have any evidence of this other than personal anecdote?
> You're assuming your conclusion.

It's just a simple observation. Life is never a random meaningless event
that happens without reason. Everyone lives his/her life for something
or someone. They spend their life and energy for that something or
someone, believing it is the purpose and goal of their life. By living
such life, that something or someone becomes their god/God.

>
>
>

[bil...@m.nu]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:58:04 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-08-12 01:36 AM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:24:03 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different
>>> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and
>>> center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One
>>> can not live his life without the lord and center of his life.
>>
>> But, see, that's where your whole argument collapses, because not
>> everyone thinks that way. I have no lord.
>
>I'm not really talking about thinking. I'm talking about living and how
>a person lives his life determines without exception what kind of
>God/god he or she worships. God is not another kind of "stamp". God is
>the center of a person's life. The person, regardless being aware of the
>concept and meaning of God/god or not, will have a center of his/her
>life as long as he/she is alive. This is a fact of life for everybody
>regardless being religious or not.
>
>>
>>> If one
>>> does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to believe the lord in
>>> somewhere else who functions as the center of one's life.
>>
>> Why? Do you have any evidence of this other than personal anecdote?
>> You're assuming your conclusion.
>
>It's just a simple observation. Life is never a random meaningless event

yes actually it is completely random and all life has no meaning
whatsoever beyond what you make it, just because you feel that you are
worthless and need a god to feel like there is reason you are here so
you dont cry every night for having such a low self esteem, means
nothing to everyone except you.

>that happens without reason. Everyone lives his/her life for something
>or someone.

I would agree with that to a point, if you find someone you love and
that loves you then I guess you could say that

>They spend their life and energy for that something or
>someone, believing it is the purpose and goal of their life. By living
>such life, that something or someone becomes their god/God.

no not exactly, that peson is very important yes, but that person can
not wave thier hand and do the harry potter thing, actually noone and
nothing can do that, at least not without some sort of tech. This
person although a VIP in someones life is not going to be worshiped
prayed or anything else those loonies to in the name of thier fairy
tales

[bil...@m.nu]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:08:33 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois

well as an atheist I more closely relate to what YOU would call a
strong atheist... but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not
strong agnostic....

I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods>

I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods I am more stongly
opposed to the fucking idiots that call themselves christians, because
they are the fucking dumbest most destructive of them all

>
>>>
>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
>>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
>>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those
>>
>> I think you need help with the english language,
>
>No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on
>the other hand...not so good.

as a theist you are always going to believe in faries and goblins and
ghosts and gouls and vampires and tinkerbell, so there is nothing I
could ever say that would make any sense to someone that can even
explain why they believe in those things

[niunian]

Too shallow. You haven't reflected on your own life deep enough to
understand what exactly I'm talking about. I say you have a life. You
have a purpose in life. You live your life for that purpose. Therefore,
that purpose is the center of your life which makes it your god. It does
not have to be religious, but it's just as important to you as any
religious belief to a theist. You would devote your life to serve and
fulfil your purpose just like any theist would in serving their God/gods.

[Carl Kaufmann]

And being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have *any* beliefs, although
I have seen plenty of theists who stupidly ask "Don't you believe in
anything?"

Using your paragraph above:

For the "weak" aphilatelist, we can talk about a *lack* of a hobby of
stamp collecting, as opposed to a positive hobby of "not stamp
collecting" [avoiding stamps whenever/however possible and encouraging
others to do the same], but we're still talking about hobbies generally.

>> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and
>
> It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure.

What, in fact, is so snarky about it?

[Carl Kaufmann]

Do you have an external authority for the above opinion?

[Tom McDonald]

Interestingly, what she cut was my observation that the idea of talking
about the analogy of non-stamp-collecting was devised as a conversation
starter, not a conversation stopper. So she stopped the conversation by
snipping that part of my reply.

So I shitcanned the bitch.

[Rudy Canoza]

In other words, yours is a faith-based position. You believe,
positively, that there is no god - not only that, but that there *can
be* no god. You believe that as a matter of pure faith.

> but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not
> strong agnostic....
>
> I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods>

No, you believe something stronger than that. *I* am the one without a
belief in any god; you have a firm belief, an absolute faith-based
conviction, in "no god." You believe there *cannot* be any god. I
don't believe that; I just don't believe in any representation of god
that has ever been presented to me. I am open to the (slim) possibility
that some representation of god may be made to me some day that I might
find convincing. You reject that out of hand.

> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods

There! You admitted your faith.

>>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
>>>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
>>>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those
>>>
>>> I think you need help with the english language,
>>
>> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on
>> the other hand...not so good.
>
>
> as a theist you

No. I am not a theist. Once again, you fucked up.

[William December Starr]

In article <mqe23c$h09$1...@dont-email.me>,

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:

> I'm not really talking about thinking. I'm talking about living and
> how a person lives his life determines without exception what kind of
> God/god he or she worships. God is not another kind of "stamp".

Proof-by-proclamation doesn't really work, you know.

Nor for that matter does proof-by-I-really-really-personally-believe-this.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mqe0d3$c50$1...@dont-email.me>,

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:

> On 2015-08-12 03:38 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>>
>>> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different
>>> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord
>>> and center of a person's life. One can live his life without a
>>> stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of
>>> his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to
>>> believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center
>>> of one's life.
>>
>> I do not believe that that statement is true.
>

> That is expected. There is no surprise there, but why snip off the
> rest of my post?

Why not? Once I've established that I don't accept your basic
premise, what's the point of going any further into your reasoning?

> Is there something you don't want to see and can not really deal
> with in the rest of what I said? That is not very honest of
> you. Is ethics never part of consideration in an atheist life?

Wow, passive-aggressive asshole much?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mqe714$lre$1...@dont-email.me>,
Tom McDonald <tmcdon...@charter.net> said:

[ re "the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois" ]

> Interestingly, what she cut was my observation that the idea of
> talking about the analogy of non-stamp-collecting was devised as a
> conversation starter, not a conversation stopper. So she stopped
> the conversation by snipping that part of my reply.
>
> So I shitcanned the bitch.

What makes you think it's a she? Not that trolling assholes like
this one are _never_ female, but I think that statistically they're
a lot more likely to turn out to me males.

-- wds

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 6:08:36 AM UTC+10, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote:

>
> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on
> the other hand...not so good.

In fact you're up there with Shawn's understanding of economics, a world expert in your own opinion.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mqe8dl$88v$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

Yep, you've nailed niunian perfectly. He's invented his own religion
based on the parts of the bible he likes and refuses to acknowledge
anything else in any religion or in reality. And uses passive aggression
when challenged.

--

JD

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

[Robert Bannister]

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

What absolute rubbish. Not believing is not the same as believing in
something.

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

LOL! You're another never-serious posters, in a long and inglorious
line of them. Too funny.

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

> Interestingly, what he cut was my observation that the idea of talking

> about the analogy of non-stamp-collecting was devised as a conversation
> starter, not a conversation stopper.

Bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/11/2015 6:41 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <mqe23c$h09$1...@dont-email.me>,
> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:
>
>> I'm not really talking about thinking. I'm talking about living and
>> how a person lives his life determines without exception what kind of
>> God/god he or she worships. God is not another kind of "stamp".
>
> Proof-by-proclamation doesn't really work, you know.

So why do you do it, billee?

[niunian]

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just showing you something you
don't yet already know regarding the concept of God and what it actually
means to life. The word God is not just a religious symbol. It is the
giver and provider of life. For people who believe money is their god,
they devote their life to money believing by doing so, that their life
will be better because their money god will reward them with a better
life. This is not any kind of religious doctrine. This is simply what
actually happens in real life.

[bil...@m.nu]

That does not mean I will get on my knees and pray to it, nor will I
give alms to it or eat crackers because of it.

[bil...@m.nu]

sounds like catholic 2.0

[bil...@m.nu]

you really are an idiot . I K N O W there is no god, I know for sure,
without a doubt

>
>
>> but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not
>> strong agnostic....
>>
>> I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods>
>
>No, you believe something stronger than that. *I* am the one without a
>belief in any god; you have a firm belief, an absolute faith-based
>conviction, in "no god." You believe there *cannot* be any god. I

for those with hearing problems I know there is no god, I dont believe
there isnt I K N O W there isnt

>don't believe that; I just don't believe in any representation of god
>that has ever been presented to me. I am open to the (slim) possibility
>that some representation of god may be made to me some day that I might
>find convincing. You reject that out of hand.
>

yup cause I know there is no god

>
>> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods
>
>There! You admitted your faith.

No I admit that Others should NOT BELIEVE in faries

>
>>>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
>>>>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
>>>>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those
>>>>
>>>> I think you need help with the english language,
>>>
>>> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on
>>> the other hand...not so good.
>>
>>
>> as a theist you
>
>No. I am not a theist. Once again, you fucked up.

Whatever

[niunian]

Irrelevant. You still have a god who sits in the center of your life for
you to devote your life in serving him or it, despite the fact you call
yourself an atheist. People who call themselves atheists really have no
idea what the word god really means.

[Carl Kaufmann]

That may be so, but it doesn't nothing to verify your proficiency with
English, logic, or rhetoric.

See, I can be just as dismissive as you.

[Rudy Canoza]

Not in the least, and you don't even believe that.

< I K N O W there is no god, I know for sure,
> without a doubt

No, you don't. You couldn't possibly know it. You *believe* it - as a
matter of pure faith.

>>
>>

>>> but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not
>>> strong agnostic....
>>>
>>> I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods>
>>
>> No, you believe something stronger than that. *I* am the one without a
>> belief in any god; you have a firm belief, an absolute faith-based
>> conviction, in "no god." You believe there *cannot* be any god. I
>
> for those with hearing problems I know there is no god

You don't know that. You can't.

>> don't believe that; I just don't believe in any representation of god
>> that has ever been presented to me. I am open to the (slim) possibility
>> that some representation of god may be made to me some day that I might
>> find convincing. You reject that out of hand.
>>
>
> yup cause I know there is no god

That's a lie.

>>
>>> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods
>>
>> There! You admitted your faith.
>
> No I admit that

No, you *did* admit your faith. Good job! What took you so long?

>>
>>>>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god,
>>>>>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking
>>>>>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you need help with the english language,
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on
>>>> the other hand...not so good.
>>>
>>>
>>> as a theist you
>>
>> No. I am not a theist. Once again, you fucked up.
>
> Whatever

Concession of defeat noted and accepted.

[bil...@m.nu]

you are a moron, I am done with you

[bil...@m.nu]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:16:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza

I am done with you troll PLONK!

[Rudy Canoza]

Concession of defeat noted and accepted, and mocked as well.

[Rudy Canoza]

Yet another concession of defeat! How many times will he do it?

[benj]

I think you two are BOTH morons. Atheists AND the religious have NO
understanding of what they are doing or how things work. It's really
quite simple. Even you clowns can understand it though you won't accept it.

Define: God = The entire universe and all the laws governing it.

Laws relevant to atheism and religious dogma: Higher dimensional
electromagnetics.

Kinds of things such laws produce: Man calls them "magic". Obviously
they are simply higher natural laws they are not familiar with.

Fundamental law relevant to religions: The law of mind and aether.
Aether responds to thought which is to say mind. Mind is the builder.
Thinking a thought causes aether to precipitate that thought into our
"reality".

Restrictions on that law: The problem is that such precipitation happens
quite slowly in our 3D space and requires very STRONG focused thought
for a period of time for such precipitations to occur. Most humans are
not capable of such focused thought without special training or other
tricks.

Most religions are collections of such thinking tools. Prayer, adding
symbolism (getting on knees) repeating mantras, giving alms, living a
life in such a way to stay focused on your ideas of interest ect. Are
all ways to focus your thoughts. The stronger the thoughts the better
the focus and the more likely they will precipitate into the aether. The
religious call this "prayers answered" or "miracles", Atheists call them
"coincidence" or "hoaxes".

Given the above, it should be obvious why constant thinking of negative,
destructive, harmful things is not such a good idea.


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

[bil...@m.nu]

coo coo coo coo
was that a clock???

FRUITCAKE!!

[William December Starr]

In article <mqe52i$pjo$1...@dont-email.me>,

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:

> Too shallow. You haven't reflected on your own life deep enough to
> understand what exactly I'm talking about.

"You'd agree with me if you were as {deep | cool | smart} as I am."

> I say you have a life. You have a purpose in life. You live your
> life for that purpose. Therefore, that purpose is the center of
> your life which makes it your god. It does not have to be
> religious, but it's just as important to you as any religious
> belief to a theist. You would devote your life to serve and fulfil
> your purpose just like any theist would in serving their God/gods.

This may apply to some people. I do not believe that it applies to
all people.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mqffq7$q28$1...@dont-email.me>,

How do you get from "a purpose" to "a god" as if the words have
identical meaning?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mqg49f$975$1...@dont-email.me>,

Wow, it's true: debating with god-droids _is_ like trying to play
chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board,
and then flies back to its flock to claim victory.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mqerbo$lbc$1...@dont-email.me>,

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:

> I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just showing you something you
> don't yet already know

"that you'd agrree with if you were smart enough to know I'm right."

-- wds

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/12/2015 5:03 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <mqg49f$975$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> said:
>
>> On 8/12/2015 10:39 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:57:28 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. You still have a god who sits in the center of your
>>>> life for you to devote your life in serving him or it, despite
>>>> the fact you call yourself an atheist. People who call
>>>> themselves atheists really have no idea what the word god really
>>>> means.
>>>
>>> you are a moron, I am done with you
>>
>> Yet another concession of defeat! How many times will he do it?
>
> Wow, it's true

It *is* true: announcing killfiling is a concession of defeat.

[talishi]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> Wow, it's true: debating with god-droids _is_ like trying to play
> chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board,
> and then flies back to its flock to claim victory.

::Snerque::

[The Starmaker]

If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in yourself?? Believing in yourself is...believing in God.


Those who believe in...themselves, believe in God...whether they like it or not!

[W.TS.]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mqg48i$975$9...@dont-email.me:

The next time you break a bone, avoid Doctors, pray instead. See how
far it gets you. No prayer has ever been answered, not a one.

[W.TS.]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:mqg49f$975$1...@dont-email.me:

God is a lie.
Now pray for me to repent, see how far it gets you.

[The Starmaker]

You can say the samething about women...

Is a woman a machine made to look human?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mqgmnh$lud$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

If niunian can invent his own religion, why can't he invent his own
definitions?

:-)

--

JD

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

[niunian]

For example?

[niunian]

When you devote your life to that purpose, you make it your god, if not
permanently, at least temporarily. It depends on how grand the purpose
sitting in the center of your life is and how devoted you can be.

[niunian]

If you can understand what I'm saying, you should know that no one can
be an atheist. Everybody has his/her personal god to worship regardless
being aware of the concept and meaning of the word "god" or not.
Perhaps, it's time to make a new definition for Atheism.

:-)

[Rudy Canoza]

I never said anything about "prayer", shit-4-braincell.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/12/2015 6:55 PM, the cunt lied:

I never said anything about god, fuckwit.

[bil...@m.nu]

And I have already shown you why that is just a stupid fucking idea
that you decided to make up becasue you feel so stupid for believing
in a god

[bil...@m.nu]

Or in your case just how mental you actually are

[The Starmaker]

I don't know too much about the history of atheism....when was it
invented?

[niunian]

Liar. I thought you were done with me.

[niunian]

On 2015-08-12 03:55 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:24:03 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>> I don't blame people who go out of their way to avoid denying God. I
>> think it's a very good sign.

>>
>>
>>>
>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly
>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who
>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting
>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat
>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based
>>> religion" bullshit.
>>>
>>

>> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different
>> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and

> that doesnt exist

>
>> center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One

>> can not live his life without the lord and center of his life. If one
>
> wanna bet I live without fantises every day
>
> <snip gobbley gook>
>

Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason
like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt.
Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god
of your own without even consciously being aware of it.

[niunian]

Nothing I said has anything to do with being mental. It's just simple
logic and common sense to show how close, how intimate, and how
practical God is to everybody. God has been with you everyday, and you
have been serving God with your pure unaltered devotion all your life,
yet you haven't the slightest clue because you have brainwashed yourself
to be an atheist. How terrible!

[HVAC]

Utter trash and garbage


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

[William December Starr]

In article <mqh4pr$qh0$5...@dont-email.me>,
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> said:

[ in response to "W.TS." <m1...@earthlink.net> ]

> On 8/12/2015 6:55 PM, the cunt lied:

Stay classy, Rudy.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mqh0pr$h9o$1...@dont-email.me>,
niunian <niu...@ymail.com> said:

> If you can understand what I'm saying, you should know that[...]

You sure have a high opinion of your own intellect, don't you?

-- wds