Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"

[!! Atheist ------------------------------]

Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
https://www.define-atheism.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
atheism - absence of belief in deities

Linguistic structure
Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without,"
hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."

Burden of proof
Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or against
theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not applicable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you call yourself a "freethinker" or "non-religious" or whatever AND you are
absent a belief in a god, then YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.


--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.

[Frank]

On 11/13/2017 3:40 PM, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>
> Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>   https://www.define-atheism.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> atheism - absence of belief in deities
>
> Linguistic structure
> Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix,
> meaning "without,"
> hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."
>
> Burden of proof
> Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or
> against
> theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not applicable.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So if you call yourself a "freethinker" or "non-religious" or whatever
> AND you are
> absent a belief in a god, then YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
>
>

You are preaching atheism as if it were a religion.

[Ed Huntress]

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill
Maher

--
Ed Huntress

[Jeanne Douglas]

On 13 Nov 2017 03:46 PM ,Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 3:40 PM, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
> >
> > Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"

> > Â https://www.define-atheism.com/

> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > atheism - absence of belief in deities
> >
> > Linguistic structure
> > Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix,
> > meaning "without,"
> > hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."
> >
> > Burden of proof
> > Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or
> > against
> > theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not applicable.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > So if you call yourself a "freethinker" or "non-religious" or whatever
> > AND you are
> > absent a belief in a god, then YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
> >
> >
> You are preaching atheism as if it were a religion.

Where?




--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[Jeanne Douglas]

Or like bald is a hair color.

[Robert Carnegie]

Not preaching. Describing.

However, I define atheism as not worshipping gods, and
I recommend it. You don't lose by it and it can free up
a lot of your time.

Some people are paid to worship gods, it's their job - but
the pay is usually lousy. Unless you use the god thing to
scare and cheat people into giving you lots and lots of money.
I must admit that this works for a bunch of people already
doing it, but it's a crowded market. Still, if honest work
isn't available or isn't attractive, you can consider
religious ministry. And whether the god approves of this
is entirely up to you!

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:49:47 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 13 November 2017 23:46:21 UTC, Frank wrote:
>> On 11/13/2017 3:40 PM, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>> >
>> > Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>> >   https://www.define-atheism.com/
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > atheism - absence of belief in deities
>> >
>> > Linguistic structure
>> > Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix,
>> > meaning "without,"
>> > hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."
>> >
>> > Burden of proof
>> > Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or
>> > against
>> > theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not applicable.
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > So if you call yourself a "freethinker" or "non-religious" or whatever
>> > AND you are
>> > absent a belief in a god, then YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
>> >
>> >
>> You are preaching atheism as if it were a religion.
>
>Not preaching. Describing.

I've never understood why these morons imagine they get to tell us
what it means to an atheist to be one, and then lie about us tp our
faces when we correct them.

In my first 40-odd years, I could count the number of jerks who did
this, on the fingers of one hand - but that was in England where
atheism isn't an issue for most people.

[default]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:46:16 -0500, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:

preach
verb

deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of
people, typically in church.

The religious believe what they are told to believe, and like to think
that everyone is as gullible as they are. So, of course they try to
make atheism into a religion. If it were, then they could say that
atheists are in the grip of a cult just like they are.

[!! Atheist ------------------------------]

I gave you info about a word 'atheism', now you look up 'preaching' and 'religion'.

I suppose you might call every post 'preaching a religion'. Educate yourself.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/14/2017 08:43 AM, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> On 11/13/2017 3:40 PM, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>>>    https://www.define-atheism.com/
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> atheism - absence of belief in deities
>>>
>>> Linguistic structure
>>> Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix,
>>> meaning "without,"
>>> hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."
>>>
>>> Burden of proof
>>> Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or
>>> against
>>> theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not
>>> applicable.
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you call yourself a "freethinker" or "non-religious" or
>>> whatever AND you are
>>> absent a belief in a god, then YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
>>>
>>>
>> You are preaching atheism as if it were a religion.
>
> I gave you info about a word 'atheism', now you look up 'preaching' and
> 'religion'.
>

[""" "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or against
theistic or anti-theistic positions,"""]

Are you saying that people that discuss and promote and argue for
atheism and radicalized militants assaulting and attacking theism are
anti-theistic and are therefore NOT atheists?

The problem being that atheists don't stop at ["atheism" can be
concisely characterized as "without theism."] and instead these atheists
promote their belief that there is no God. Atheists take their lack of
theism and turned it into a religion by way of creating a belief around
it. Their belief is that God doesn't exist so therefore they can
organize and collectivize to stop other people from expressing their
belief in a God. *That's NOT a lack of anything*

If you give a definition then you need to confirm that it's applied to
the correct people. Which atheists are the ones NOT trying to stop
others from expressing their belief and aren't finding like minded
people to pay for and lend moral support for their law suits against
religions that do believe in Gods.

If as the definition says it's a simple lack of belief then you wouldn't
need to stop others from expressing their beliefs in public. If it were
a hazard or caused a loss of time for you then maybe, but just as a
stand against their belief? That's NOT atheism as defined by "without
theism". Without theism is NOT a movement or collective or a reason to
oppose...

> I suppose you might call every post 'preaching a religion'.  Educate
> yourself.

NO, just the ones that espouse a belief. If you had evidence that God
does not or can not exist.... it would be a fact not a belief. You
don't preach facts you state the facts. SO unless atheists have evidence
and facts that prove their theory, they would be preaching when they
discuss it, that would make alt.atheism a place to preach atheism and it
makes atheism a religion.

Theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin, if atheism is a lack
of belief or without theism, then how could an atheist exist without
there first being a belief in God to not believe in.... an atheist
would not exist without a theist. An atheist wouldn't change their life
to oppose a theist they would ignore them, yet atheists choose to
believe that God does NOT exist rather than to choose to have a lack of
theism. Atheism is a creation of theism. By your own description
atheism is a passive lifestyle, but present day atheists have contorted
it to be an active militant resistance to theism.... making Atheism its
own religion.


--
That's Karma

If Atheists demand scientific proof that GOD exists, why don't those
same Atheists demand scientific proof that gays and Global Warming exist?

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Words mean what the people who use those words mean by them.

"Atheism" is a word with multiple shades of meaning, and different
people use it to indicate varying philosophical stances.

And etymology is descriptive, not prescriptive. The same is true
of dictionary definitions.

If the word had a single, widely agreed-upon meanng, we wouldn't
be having this very discussion endlessly.

Atlatl Axolotl

[Christopher A. Lee]

It's just deliberately rude religionists. They can't grasp that _we_
get say what our own POV is - they don't get to cherry pick a
definition which fits their ignorant prejudice, we get to tell them
which one describes us.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Oh, this week on Tracy Ullman, there's a sketch that shows the British attitude toward religion.

[!! Atheist ------------------------------]

Atlatl Axolotl wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 1:40:35 PM UTC-7, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>
>>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>> https://www.define-atheism.com/
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>atheism - absence of belief in deities
>>
>>Linguistic structure
>>Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without,"
>>hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."
>>
>>Burden of proof
>>Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or against
>>theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not applicable.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>So if you call yourself a "freethinker" or "non-religious" or whatever AND you are
>>absent a belief in a god, then YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
>
>

> "Atheism" is a word with multiple shades of meaning, and different
> people use it to indicate varying philosophical stances.

I simply post what most atheists mean by "atheist"; we don't agree with the
demonizing definitions that have long been spewed from religion's pulpits.

[duke]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:40:50 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
<notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
> https://www.define-atheism.com/
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>atheism - absence of belief in deities

Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most
general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

>
>Linguistic structure
>Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without,"
>hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[!! Atheist ------------------------------]

duke wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:40:50 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>> https://www.define-atheism.com/
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>atheism - absence of belief in deities
>
>
> Atheism
>
> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
> that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most
> general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Yes, duke, that's just as we've been saying; gold star to you.
"In a broad sense" all atheists reject (hence, absent) belief in a god.
"In a narrower sense" (i.e. *some* atheists, I'm one) assert there are no gods.
"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief".

i.e. we don't believe you when you say there is a god.

>>Linguistic structure
>>Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without,"
>>hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."

[duke]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:28 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"

<notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:40:50 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
>> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>>> https://www.define-atheism.com/
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>atheism - absence of belief in deities
>>
>>
>> Atheism
>>
>> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
>> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
>> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
>> that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most
>> general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
>
>Yes, duke, that's just as we've been saying; gold star to you.
>"In a broad sense" all atheists reject (hence, absent) belief in a god.
>"In a narrower sense" (i.e. *some* atheists, I'm one) assert there are no gods.
>"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief".
>
>i.e. we don't believe you when you say there is a god.

I quote the evidence. I've asked over and over for you atheists to present some
evidence to use to even come close to professing there is no God.

Whether you a) don't believe or b) reject, it would seen that you can offer a
reason, any reason, for your position.

As a Roman Catholic, I have stated over and over my evidence (not proof) for the
existence of God. Never has an atheist even tried to explain their position
other than pure unsupported desire to say "there is no God".

That leaves us Roman Catholics no other choice but to ridicule your unsupported
position.

[!! Atheist ------------------------------]

duke wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:28 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:40:50 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
>>><notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>>>> https://www.define-atheism.com/
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>atheism - absence of belief in deities
>>>
>>>
>>>Atheism
>>>
>>>Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
>>>deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
>>>there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
>>>that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most
>>>general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
>>
>>Yes, duke, that's just as we've been saying; gold star to you.
>>"In a broad sense" all atheists reject (hence, absent) belief in a god.
>>"In a narrower sense" (i.e. *some* atheists, I'm one) assert there are no gods.
>>"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief".
>>
>>i.e. we don't believe you when you say there is a god.
>
>

> Whether you a) don't believe or b) reject, it would seen that you can offer a
> reason, any reason, for your position.

My reason:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For 300,000 years of human existence, billions of people have been straining
themselves to find any smidgen of evidence of a god, yet we don't have even
one little bit of verifiable evidence, and theists have all kinds of goofy
excuses why their alleged gods remain in hiding from us. I say that's
strong evidence that no god exists, at least for any god who wants us to
know it exists (e.g. the alleged Judaism/Christian/Islam god). That is far
stronger evidence than for 'no tooth-fairy exists'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.

--

[Tim]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:28 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:40:50 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
> >> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
> >>> https://www.define-atheism.com/
> >>>
> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>atheism - absence of belief in deities
> >>
> >>
> >> Atheism
> >>
> >> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
> >> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
> >> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
> >> that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most
> >> general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
> >
> >Yes, duke, that's just as we've been saying; gold star to you.
> >"In a broad sense" all atheists reject (hence, absent) belief in a god.
> >"In a narrower sense" (i.e. *some* atheists, I'm one) assert there are no gods.
> >"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief".
> >
> >i.e. we don't believe you when you say there is a god.
>
> I quote the evidence.

No you don't.

> I've asked over and over for you atheists to present some
> evidence to use to even come close to professing there is no God.

And we keep telling you that it's theistic lack of evidence that supports atheism.

>
> Whether you a) don't believe or b) reject, it would seen that you can offer a
> reason, any reason, for your position.

Yup, lack of evidence for gods.

[Rick Johnson]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:00:12 AM UTC-6, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> Ol' NOT-NOT said:
[...]

> Are you saying that people that discuss and promote and

> argue for atheism and radicalized militants militants

> assaulting and attacking theism are anti-theistic and are
> therefore NOT atheists?

Wow. This is a giant shit-smelling burrito constructed from
a false dichotomy filling wrapped tightly in a begging-the-
question tortilla, spiked with ghost-pepper "hate sauce",
and served passionately with a side of rancid, centuries-old
sour-taste-in-the-mouth cream.

First of all. You need to differentiate between opposition
to _ideas_ and opposition to _people_ and _institutions_
themselves. The former is merely a matter of civil discourse
(google is your friend). While the latter is highly
emotional.

However.

We must also understand that emotion is not _always_
unjustifiable. For instance. Those who have been the victims
of monsters created by the theistic teachings have a right
to be angry. And atheist are not the only group who are
angry about priest sex abuse, mass murder (both crusades
*AND* jihad), terrorism in the name of god (both Xian *AND*
mooslum[1]), and all the many social ills that are a direct
result of theistic teachings and/or dehumanization of those
who disagree.

In fact, many theists are opposed to these
"institutionalized behaviors" as well. But unfortunately,
they don't realize how their participation in religion is
justifying, or extending protection to, the exact same
behavoirs they scorn.

And while atheism is indeed defined as a _lack_ of a belief
in "god", and there is no denying that some atheist have
engaged in militant anti-theist behavior[2], generally,
the atheists who _DO_ make passionate argument against
theism are _not_ motivated by a hatred of theists, rather,
they are motivated by the rude behavior of theists (aka:
proselytize, dehumanization of non-believers, etc...).

Therefore, your feeble attempts to link passionate argument
with genocide are an abortion of logic. As the former is
_reasonable_ and _vital_ to social discourse and self
determination. While the latter is _unreasonable_ and
absolutely abhorrent.

Also, note, that the three aforementioned tyrants[2] were
not motivated by atheism to kill, rather, they were
motivated by a political ideology called Marxism. Marxism
assumes the extremist opinion that anyone who refuses
participation, or anyone who blocks or slows the progress
of, must be made an example of, and summarily exected. In
this manner, Marxism is inhumane and an absolutely
intolerant political ideology. And its barbaric tactics of
survival are borrowed from the most depraved and hateful
teachings of theistic religion.

But i digress...

So the final question remains: Can someone be atheist *AND*
anti-theist *AND* a raving lunatic murder? Of course they
can. Just as someone can be theist, anti anti-theist and a
raving murder -- or any other combination you might care to
assemble.

But try as i may -- because my goal has never been to defend
atheism -- i cannot find a link between atheism (a simple
lack of belief in a specific type of delusion) to genocidal
mania. But if you have some concrete evidence suggesting
otherwise, by all means, bring it to this discussion.

> The problem being that atheists don't stop at ["atheism"
> can be concisely characterized as "without theism."] and
> instead these atheists promote their belief that there is
> no God.

_Who_ is _promoting_ atheism? Please name these people. And
if you think that when atheists fight against theist tyranny
such as:

(1) national holidays
(2) theist propaganda (from christmas trees in the public
square to "In Go We Trust" or "One Nation Under God")

then your definition of "promotong" is wrong. Working to
remove the "curtural legitimizing of religion", and the
various forms of theistic propaganda from our public
squares, money and "civic ritual ", is not _promoting_
atheism at all. It's merely removing state sanctioned
religious tyranny.

> Atheists take their lack of theism and turned it
> into a religion by way of creating a belief around it.

Atheism is simply the _lack_ of a specific kind of mental
delusion. When will you understand this?

Is _not_ being bi-polar a religion?

Is _not_ being schizophrenic a religion?

Is _not_ being OCD a religion?

Is _not_ being a proselytizing asshole a religion?

Is _not_ suffering fools a religion?

> Their belief is that God doesn't exist so therefore they
> can organize and collectivize to stop other people from
> expressing their belief in a God.

Atheist do not wish to force any non-belief on you theist.
We merely want you to cease and desist with your contined,
systematic aggressions -- and outright tyranny -- against
the naturally autonomous nature of the human mind. So,
believe what ever _you_ want to believe. But stop filling
other people's minds (including children!) with lies. And
stop exploiting the emotional controls of the mind to serve
your collectively malevolent intentions.

> *That's NOT a lack of anything*

Sadly, you lack an understanding of how your intentions (and
those of your ideological ilk) are as tyrannical as king
george, marxism and/or radical islam. Congratulations. You
make common cause with some of the worst people in human
history.

> If you give a definition then you need to confirm that it's
> applied to the correct people. Which atheists are the ones
> NOT trying to stop others from expressing their belief and
> aren't finding like minded people to pay for and lend moral
> support for their law suits against religions that do
> believe in Gods.

Double congratulations! Now you're undermining both the
letter and the spirit of the American Constitution! Do you
respect the values of liberty codified by the Constitution
or not? Do you respect the spirit of the law as defined in
the first amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

BUT WAIT!

THERE'S MORE!

And while congress has indeed made no law _establishing_ a
state religion, the fact that you theists can infest the
public square with your religious symbols (which are
propaganda!), and furthermore, the fact that you do so
without consideration of any other religion (aka: Xianity
exclusivity!) proves that congress is allowing you theists
to violate the _spirit_ of the law via a loophole in the
_letter_.

And in no way does the first amendment justify (neither by
letter, nor by spirit) the _ramming_ of religion down the
throats of the minority via the will of X-insanity majority.

In fact, the wise founders of america knew all-to-well the
dangers of the mob, and set forth to design the american
_republic_ in a manner that would protect, not only the
minority from the tyrannical will of the _majority_ (aka:
the mob!), but also, the entire populance from the
tyrannical will of _government_.

Which means that you either (1) don't truely understand the
principles of freedom, liberty and self determination, *OR*,
(2) you _do_ understand them, and you are willing to
undermine these principles for the sake of your pet
delusion. Think about that for a while. And then ask
yourself. What's more important: religion or freedom? And if
your answer is religion, then you do do not respect the
humanitarian principles, which form the foundations of the
american republic.

As a thought experiment:

Imagine if america were predominately mooslim[3]. How would
you feel if islam were shoved down your throat; and
showcased during multiple annual events in public square;
and force- fed to your children at schools? I bet you
wouldn't like it one bit!

Well, congratulations asshole!

Now you know how atheist feel!

You theist need to understand one thing. And listen
carefully! We will _not_ stand by idle as you to attempt to
justify your tyranny with loopholes in the law. And this
widespread belief by you christians that a history of
religious tyranny somehow justifies, or sets some sort of
legal precedent for the continuation of this jack-booted
tyranny, will _not_ be tolerated. The days of religious
tyranny are coming quickly to end.

*YOU*, and your theist friends, are on the wrong side of
history.

> If as the definition says it's a simple lack of belief then
> you wouldn't need to stop others from expressing their
> beliefs in public. If it were a hazard or caused a loss of
> time for you then maybe, but just as a stand against their
> belief? That's NOT atheism as defined by "without theism".
> Without theism is NOT a movement or collective or a reason
> to oppose...

We're not standing *AGAINST* your _beliefs_. We are standing
*WITH* those who have not _yet_ been been infected with your
god delusion. Why can't you understand the difference?

> > I suppose you might call every post 'preaching a
> > religion'. Educate yourself.
>
> NO, just the ones that espouse a belief. If you had
> evidence that God does not or can not exist.... it would be
> a fact not a belief. You don't preach facts you state the
> facts. SO unless atheists have evidence and facts that
> prove their theory, they would be preaching when they
> discuss it, that would make alt.atheism a place to preach
> atheism and it makes atheism a religion. Theism and
> atheism are two sides of the same coin, if atheism is a
> lack of belief or without theism, then how could an atheist
> exist without there first being a belief in God to not
> believe in....

Oh brother. You really are a lost cause... :-(

> an atheist would not exist without a theist.

And just when i thought we had hit rock bottom, he starts
flapping his gums again. >:-(

> An atheist wouldn't change their life to oppose a theist
> they would ignore them, yet atheists choose to believe that
> God does NOT exist rather than to choose to have a lack of
> theism. Atheism is a creation of theism. By your own
> description atheism is a passive lifestyle, but present day
> atheists have contorted it to be an active militant
> resistance to theism.... making Atheism its own religion.

*Face palm*

And now i know why your jesus myth wept.


-------------------------
[1] aka: A bovine ghetto.
[2] from the simple folk like myself who actively try to
expose the lies and hypocrisy of religion, to the murdering
bastards (aka: The Usual Suspects: Stalin, Lennin, Mao,
etc...)
[3] aka: Michelle Obamas new pet project to fight bovine
obesity.

[Rick Johnson]

############################################################
# EDIT #
############################################################
# I apologize to both sides for this. But some of my #
# wording was clumsy, and requires clarification... #
############################################################

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 11:28:32 AM UTC-6, Rick Johnson wrote:
> First of all. You need to differentiate between opposition
> to _ideas_ and opposition to _people_ and _institutions_
> themselves.

############################################################
# CORRECTION #
############################################################
# "You must differentiate between opposition to _ideas_ #
# and _institutions_, and the opposition to _people_." #
############################################################

IOW: our goal should never be to oppose _people_. Because
people are not the problem. Rather, it is the bad _ideas_
and the _institutions_ who promote these bad ideas
(religion, government, for example) who must be opposed.

> But try as i may -- because my goal has never been to defend
> atheism -- i cannot find a link between atheism (a simple
> lack of belief in a specific type of delusion) to genocidal
> mania.

############################################################
# CORRECTION #
############################################################
# But try as i may -- because my goal has never been to #
# defend atheism -- i cannot find a link between atheism #
# (a simple lack of a specific type of delusion) to #
# genocidal mania. #
############################################################

And while arguably, the "official" definition of atheism
mentions nothing about mental illness, we cannot escape the
reality that delusion is a fundamental component of theisms
existence[1]. And my _suspicion_ for this "omission", is
that, those who control the definitions of words, do not
_disagree_ with me, but rather, find themselves between an
emotional rock and a hard place. Meaning: do they risk
offending the majority of humanity, or do they "tweak" the
definition slightly so as not to offend. Well. That is my
suspicion, anyway... ;-)

> then your definition of "promotong" is wrong. Working to
> remove the "curtural legitimizing of religion", and the
> various forms of theistic propaganda from our public
> squares, money and "civic ritual ", is not _promoting_
> atheism at all. It's merely removing state sanctioned
> religious tyranny.

############################################################
# CORRECTION #
############################################################
# Working to remove the "curtural legitimization of #
# religion" and the various forms of theistic propaganda #
# which infect our public squares, our money, and our #
# "civic ritual... is not promoting _atheism_ at all! It's #
# merely promoting the _removal_ of "state sanctioned #
# religious tyranny". #
############################################################

Yes. Because there is no constitutional right to
propagandize the public with your pet ideological spiel. Nor
to pester them. Yes. You theist have a right to free speech,
but not a right to be a fascist prick in the mold of Joseph
Goebbels!

> Sadly, you lack an understanding of how your intentions
> (and those of your ideological ilk) are as tyrannical as
> king george, marxism and/or radical islam. Congratulations.
> You make common cause with some of the worst people in
> human history.

############################################################
# CORRECTION (re: Karl Marx) #
############################################################
# You make common cause with some of the worst people [and #
# ideologies] in human history. #
############################################################

While i _am_ opposed to the ideology of Marxism (as
implemented by Lenin, Stalin, Mao...), i am _not_ opposed to
the intellectualism of Marx, nor the man himself. His
observations of capitalism are enlightening. And i believe
his intellectual contributions are important to our social
evolution. Yes, even if they spawned some of the worst forms
of governmental tyranny in history. It's not his fault!
Ideas are just ideas. Simple tools of understanding. They're
like a loaded gun. Completely harmless! That is, until some
person with ill-intent takes that tool into their hands and
proceeds to violate the liberty of others -- be they the
police (under "official orders") or just some raving lunatic
answering to her own delusions, jealously, hatred, envy, or
whatever...


--

[1] Of course, there are logical problems with the
definition of delusion _itself_ (look it up!). As there have
been attempts by "those who define words", to attribute
cultural and even religious "norms" as _not_ constituting a
delusion. *EVEN WHEN*, these norms outright reject reality.
So, in essence, the definition of delusion attempts to
convince us that thoughts rejecting objective reality
(logic, reason) are perfectly sane, so long as a majority of
the people accept them.[2]

[2] Hmm. Which begs the question: Is the definition of
delusion a form of _delusion_ itself?


PS: Hopefully I didn't make any _new_ silly mistakes. O:-)

[Gunner Asch]

Atheism...just another faith based religious belief.


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

[Attaboy Luther!]

<yawn> Bullshit when you first said it 20 years ago, bullshit now.

[duke]

>Atheism...just another faith based religious belief.

Non-faith based.

[Gunner Asch]

Of course its faith based. Its the Church of Atheism.

>
>
>*****
>The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
>and a good cigar.
>
>G.K. Chesterton
>*****

[Delvin Benet]

Bullshit.

[Bob]

On 11/18/2017 3:47 AM, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:

> There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.

"Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say they
want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific
method. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach.
Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God."

https://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-evidence-for-god


--
The unregenerate non-elect will always believe what another unregenerate
non-elect says, whereas the regenerate elect will intrinsically recognize
what the unregenerate non-elect says as a lie. Therefore those who were
predestined for Hell, will still end up in Hell, and those who are
predestined
for Heaven are still going to go to Heaven. Nothing in God's plan will
change.
For by convincing other unregenerate non-elects to believe his lies, he is
fulfilling that part of God's plan which God has predestined just for him.

Or, as the Gospel of John very concisely puts it:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door
but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who
enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper
opens.
The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them
out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep
follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but
they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."
[John 10:1-5]

[Gunner Asch]

Simply present your proof that there is no god(s) and you will have
won.

Until then...its simply faith.


Gunner

[Tim]

Atheism doesn't require proving. It's a belief claim, not a knowledge claim.

> Until then...its simply faith.

No, it's a belief based on the theists lack of evidence for their beliefs. Theists have faith, atheists don't need it.

[Bob]

On 11/20/2017 5:23 AM, Tim wrote:

> No, it's a belief based on the theists lack of evidence for their beliefs.

No. We do not have a "lack of evidence" for our beliefs.

"The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children
of God."
(Romans 8:16)

> Theists have faith, atheists don't need it.

We have faith that God will keep his promise to us.

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

I never claimed "there is no god". I said I don't believe in any.
That's not faith - that's lack of faith.

This "just another faith based religious belief" bullshit is not
something you thought up yourself. I've heard it from too many theists.
It's something a theist leader taught you to say.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <hdCQB.11376$ON1....@fx33.iad>, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n˘t> wrote:

> I never claimed "there is no god". I said I don't believe in any.
> That's not faith - that's lack of faith.

You believe you will not be punished by any gods. (Eris doesn't love you, but
she loves to screw up your life.)

Of necessity everyone has to believe in something such as reality is real and
continues without you or ceases to exist if you cease to exist. I don't
understand why so many christians and atheists are offended by that.

Well.....maybe if we accept we all have to start from the same place, blind and
alone, and have to stagger into some light we might have empathy knowing how
much we share, and show a little tolerance for staggerring to a different light.
But tolerance requires admitting maybe it's our light that is wrong, and how can
we live with ourselves without utter and absolute confidence that only our light
is correct.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Odd...I keep reading you claiming "there is no god(s)" in a manner
indicating you are an atheist. And in fact...IRRC..you have made the
claim that anyone who does..is deranged. Do I have you mistaken for
someone else? Should I go and check on Google?

Hummmm?

Btw...its commonly known I came up with that quote about 18 yrs
ago...while dealing with atheist trolls on this
group...misc.survivalism.

It should be mentioned..Im not a Christian. Im Buddhist. Which Ive
stated for at least 20 yrs here.

Shall we review your posts on the subject?

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/20/2017 10:55 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

No, you have never once read that from me, liar.

Here's what isn't odd: you clumsily evaded my point. You didn't think
up "just another faith based religious belief" yourself. That was
taught to you by another credulous theist - one who is just a bit more
imaginative than you.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
> that any deities exist.

And that absence of belief in deities, contains the belief that there
isn't any deities.


Why else would there be so many radicalized militant Atheists who pro
actively try to force religion into the shadows.

Doing so isn't a passive absence of belief... and to be sure, an
absence of something is passive NOT aggressive.

This means the aggression towards religions and deities are either a
contorted form of Atheism where Atheists have become hate filled and
radicalized like ISIS or they're pretending to be Atheists without
actually living up to the Atheist definition and so they're extremely
incompetent in their Atheism.

--
That's Karma

[Ned Latham]

#BeamMeUpScotty wrote in <akHQB.19334$4c.1...@fx14.iad>:

> >
> > Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the
> > existence of deities.
> >

> > In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
> > there are no deities.
> >

> > Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any
> > deities exist.

Most simply, it is the rejection of the god hypoothesis.

> And that absence of belief in deities, contains the belief that
> there isn't any deities.

Pffft.

> Why else would there be so many radicalized militant Atheists who pro
> actively try to force religion into the shadows.

Theism is delusion; which is to say, insanity. Now is long past time
we put it behind us.

[Tim]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 7:40:20 AM UTC-5, Bob wrote:
> On 11/20/2017 5:23 AM, Tim wrote:
>
> > No, it's a belief based on the theists lack of evidence for their beliefs.
>
> No. We do not have a "lack of evidence" for our beliefs.
>
> "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children
> of God."
> (Romans 8:16)
>
> > Theists have faith, atheists don't need it.
>
> We have faith that God will keep his promise to us.

And that's all you have.

[duke]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 01:52:28 -0500, Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/18/2017 3:47 AM, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>
>> There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
>
>"Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say they
>want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific
>method. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach.
>Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God."
>
>https://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-evidence-for-god

You mean like you handled the salem witch trials?

[duke]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:28:23 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>Yes, duke, that's just as we've been saying; gold star to you.
>>>>>"In a broad sense" all atheists reject (hence, absent) belief in a god.
>>>>>"In a narrower sense" (i.e. *some* atheists, I'm one) assert there are no gods.

>>>>I quote the evidence. I've asked over and over for you atheists to present some
>>>>evidence to use to even come close to professing there is no God.

>>>>Whether you a) don't believe or b) reject, it would seen that you can offer a
>>>>reason, any reason, for your position.

And I'm still waiting.

the dukester, American-American

[duke]

Amen to that.

>Until then...its simply faith.

Yep. They just can't put 2 and 2 together.

the dukester, American-American

[duke]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

That's faith from the other direction.

the dukester, American-American

[Smiler]

You don't expect theists to be original, do you?
Most of their stuff is 2000 years old.

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

[Bob]

>> We have faith that God will keep his promises to us.

>
> And that's all you have.

What more do we need?

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:25:53 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 11/20/2017 10:55 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Believe as you wish, lumpy.

Feel free to present cites to differ.

Id strongly suggest you do a Google on groups of
the term and see which poster and which dates are the oldest.

Feel free to report back your data.



Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

Bingo!!

[Olrik]

Le 2017-11-20 à 15:56, #BeamMeUpScotty a écrit :
>
>> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
>> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
>> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
>> that any deities exist.
>
>
> And that absence of belief in deities, contains the belief that there
> isn't any deities.

So you believe that Thor does not exist.

That makes you a believer. A theist.

<snippage>


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

[Olrik]

Theists know that their beliefs are irrational. In order to rationalize
their deviant beliefs and behaviours, they need an equivalency : if you
don't believe in their god, then you *believe* that their god does not
exist.

In their minds, they just have a collective "sigh" that beliefs =
beliefs, so they comforts themselves that way.

It's quite childish.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

So then you believe that their God exists but choose NOT to believe in
it despite believing in its existence.... you just choose to ignore God
and the fact God exists?

Yet Atheists are aggressively trying to purge God from the public and
even at times in their own church using government force.

--
That's Karma

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/20/2017 12:56 PM, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
>> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
>> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
>> that any deities exist.
>
>
> And that absence of belief in deities, contains the belief that there
> isn't any deities.

No, it doesn't.

[Delvin Benet]

Not all of them. Some do. The ones who do are mostly the ones who
don't try to jam their beliefs down the throats of others. They know
that it's a deeply personal and unprovable belief, something that gives
them comfort. I usually don't have any problem with people like that.

It's those who don't know or accept that their beliefs are irrational,
i.e. the ones who insist that their beliefs are "truth", who cause all
the trouble. People like Hartung, for example.

> In order to rationalize
> their deviant beliefs and behaviours, they need an equivalency : if you
> don't believe in their god, then you *believe* that their god does not
> exist.

That sure seems to be true of those who push this "just another faith
based religious belief" bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/21/2017 12:22 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty lied:

No.

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

No. It's lack of faith or belief.

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/20/2017 2:16 PM, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:28:56 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I never made such a claim, so no need to present anything.

>
>> Until then...its simply faith.
>
> Yep.

Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.

[Ed Huntress]

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill
Maher

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Assume the position...

Back to back is the abstinence position.

If you get pregnant back to back.... you aren't human so it doesn't matter.

--
That's Karma

[Delvin Benet]

Exactly.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:

>On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Its nothing of the sort when you try doing "missonary work".

We wouldnt give a damned one way or another..but given the effort you
display in trying to convert others to your belief system....its a
religion.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:01:35 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:

>On 11/20/2017 2:16 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:28:56 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

So if this is YOUR personal belief..why are you spouting it here?
Missonary work means you are trying to convert others to your
religion.

>
>>
>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>
>> Yep.
>
>Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.

Atheism is just another faith based religious belief.

[Mitchell Holman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dlp91dhibai2md7o8...@4ax.com:

Everyone is born an atheist, is only
indoctrination in a particular mythology
that makes them religious.

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/21/2017 6:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

No one is doing any such work.

> We wouldnt give a damned one way or another..but given the effort you
> display in trying to convert others to your belief system.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm explaining patiently, as to a
child - which you are - that lack of belief is not belief.

[Delvin Benet]

To show that you are wrong.

> Missonary work

No.

>>
>>>
>>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.
>
> Atheism is just another faith based religious belief.

No. And to repeat, you didn't originate that - you're spouting your
religious indoctrination, as usual.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:27:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote:

>On 11/21/2017 6:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Nearly all internet Atheists are preachers. They simply cant stant
reading posts from individual A to individual B that mentions
religion. So they put on their pointed hats and start preaching.

>
>> We wouldnt give a damned one way or another..but given the effort you
>> display in trying to convert others to your belief system.
>
>I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm explaining patiently, as to a
>child - which you are - that lack of belief is not belief.

"Atheism is just another faith based religious belief"

Frankly old perv....I dont give a shit what you believe. Preaching
your beleeeves is missonary work.

Dont want to be a missionary? Keep your mouth shut on whatever
subject that you dont want to be known as a missionary on.

You dont see me expounding on Buddhism do you?

Im Buddhist. Have been for 40 yrs. Yet you wont see me telling the
group that if they arent Buddhist...something is wrong with them.

And you NEVER see me starting a topic with alt.atheism in the
newsgroups list.

Nor alt.buddhism.

[Gunner Asch]

So you are doing Missionary work.
>
>> Missonary work
>
>No.

Yes.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.
>>
>> Atheism is just another faith based religious belief.
>
>No. And to repeat, you didn't originate that - you're spouting your
>religious indoctrination, as usual.
>

As I told you days ago...give us some cites that I didnt "invent" that
term.

Yet so far...you have ignored my request.

Why is that...because you "dont believe" I came up with it?

Hummmm?

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/21/2017 7:56 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:27:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2017 6:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Cite.

<VBG>

Don't bother trying. It was just a stupid lie you told.

>>> We wouldnt give a damned one way or another..but given the effort you
>>> display in trying to convert others to your belief system.
>>
>> I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm explaining patiently, as to a
>> child - which you are - that lack of belief is not belief.
>
> "Atheism is just another faith based religious belief"

No. And you didn't coin that.

> Dont want to be a missionary? Keep your mouth shut on whatever
> subject that you dont want to be known as a missionary on.

Go pound sand up your ass. I'll talk about whatever I want, and you'll
take it and you'll like it.

No one takes orders or instruction from chronically unemployed - and
unemployable - dole scroungers.

[Delvin Benet]

No. You are.

>>> Missonary work
>>
>> No.

Good - that's settled, then.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.
>>>
>>> Atheism is just another faith based religious belief.
>>
>> No. And to repeat, you didn't originate that - you're spouting your
>> religious indoctrination, as usual.
>>
>
> As I told you days ago...give us some cites that I didnt "invent" that
> term.

Nope - you have to prove you did. You can't, of course...because you
didn't.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:12:15 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote:

>>
>> Nearly all internet Atheists are preachers.
>
>Cite.
>
><VBG>

VBG)

>
>Don't bother trying. It was just a stupid lie you told.

Dont bother denying it. Its a stupid lie you just told.

>
>>>> We wouldnt give a damned one way or another..but given the effort you
>>>> display in trying to convert others to your belief system.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm explaining patiently, as to a
>>> child - which you are - that lack of belief is not belief.
>>
>> "Atheism is just another faith based religious belief"
>
>No. And you didn't coin that.

Cite.

<VBG>

>
>> Dont want to be a missionary? Keep your mouth shut on whatever
>> subject that you dont want to be known as a missionary on.
>
>Go pound sand up your ass. I'll talk about whatever I want, and you'll
>take it and you'll like it.

No I wont.

<plink>

see ..thats really easy.

>
>No one takes orders or instruction from chronically unemployed - and
>unemployable - dole scroungers.

So Richard..who are you going to be next?

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/21/2017 8:19 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:12:15 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Nearly all internet Atheists are preachers.
>>
>> Cite.
>>
>> <VBG>
>>

>> Don't bother trying. It was just a stupid lie you told.
>
> Dont bother denying it.

Sorry, you need to support it. You can't, of course.

<VBG>

>>>>> We wouldnt give a damned one way or another..but given the effort you
>>>>> display in trying to convert others to your belief system.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm explaining patiently, as to a
>>>> child - which you are - that lack of belief is not belief.
>>>
>>> "Atheism is just another faith based religious belief"
>>
>> No. And you didn't coin that.
>
> Cite.

Yes, let's have a "cite" proving that you coined it.

<VBG>

>
>>
>>> Dont want to be a missionary? Keep your mouth shut on whatever
>>> subject that you dont want to be known as a missionary on.
>>
>> Go pound sand up your ass. I'll talk about whatever I want, and you'll
>> take it and you'll like it.
>
> No I wont.
>
> <plink>
>
> see ..thats really easy.
>
>>
>> No one takes orders or instruction from chronically unemployed - and
>> unemployable - dole scroungers.
>
> So Richard

Not my name.

[Olrik]

You have reading comprehension problems.

> Yet Atheists are aggressively trying to purge God from the public

It's called secularism.

It's a good thing. You know that xians are "aggressively trying to purge
allah from the public", or that xians are "aggressively trying to purge
Yahwe from the public"?

Religion should be banned from public life. Religious beliefs should be
private and personal.

> and even at times in their own church using government force.
>


--

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:28 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:40:50 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
> >> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
> >>> https://www.define-atheism.com/
> >>>
> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>atheism - absence of belief in deities
> >>
> >>
> >> Atheism
> >>
> >> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
> >> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
> >> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
> >> that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most
> >> general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
> >
> >Yes, duke, that's just as we've been saying; gold star to you.
> >"In a broad sense" all atheists reject (hence, absent) belief in a god.
> >"In a narrower sense" (i.e. *some* atheists, I'm one) assert there are no gods.
> >"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief".
> >
> >i.e. we don't believe you when you say there is a god.
>
> I quote the evidence. I've asked over and over for you atheists to present some > evidence to use to even come close to professing there is no God.

And we've all given you our main reason: there is NO EVIDENCE that your god exists or any other god created for other religions. Everything you and other
have put forth has either been disproved or rejected for lack of reality. The
fact that you and other theists refuse to accept this is your lack, not ours. We gave you what you requested.

>
> Whether you a) don't believe or b) reject, it would seen that you can offer a
> reason, any reason, for your position.

Yes, we can and have (many times) offered our reasons. You simply don't
like them.

>
> As a Roman Catholic, I have stated over and over my evidence (not proof) for the existence of God. Never has an atheist even tried to explain their position
> other than pure unsupported desire to say "there is no God".

You are a liar. You shouldn't deny that, but you will. Narcissists believe
they are always right, even when they aren't. And you are definitely a narcissist. It's not even completely your fault. It's a mental illness that
you share with other theist trolls.

>
> That leaves us Roman Catholics no other choice but to ridicule your unsupported position.

You speak only for yourself, Earl James Weber, not anyone else. And you lie
yet again.

[Rudy Canoza]

This is a *classic* #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty nugget of bullshit.

>
> You have reading comprehension problems.

It's much worse than that.

>
>> Yet Atheists are aggressively trying to purge God from the public

A bullshit lie.

>
> It's called secularism.

It's called properly demanding the separation of church and state. I
have no problem with people adhering to irrational religious belief -
that's their prerogative. I don't even have a problem with public
officials allowing their irrational religious belief to "inform" their
conduct of their office, *as long as* they aren't violating the law and
the Constitution in so doing. Kim Davis? Definitely violating the law,
and without any constitutional protection in doing so.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 12:40:35 PM UTC-8, !! Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
> Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
> https://www.define-atheism.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> atheism - absence of belief in deities

Indeed.

> Linguistic structure
> Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without,"
> hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism."

Okay.

> Burden of proof
> Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or against
> theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not applicable.

That seems logically sound.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So if you call yourself a "freethinker" or "non-religious" or whatever AND you are
> absent a belief in a god, then YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.

Not quite, because calling oneself something doesn't necessarily make it
true. In order to qualify as an "atheist" one must not hold a belief that
any goddesses or gods are real.

While I tend to accept self-characterizations of individuals, there is a
possibility that they could be lying, although I suspect this to be less
common for claims of being a theist (or an atheist).

> --
> There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.

That's an anti-theistic claim.

> Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.

That's been my observation too.

> Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.

Ha ha!

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"God (n.); A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority, resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that should not be questioned."
-- David Silverman, Defender of Civilisation

[Rick Johnson]

Gunner Asch wrote:
[...]

> "Atheism is just another faith based religious belief"
> Frankly old perv....I dont give a shit what you believe.
> Preaching your beleeeves is missonary work. Dont want to
> be a missionary? Keep your mouth shut on whatever subject
> that you dont want to be known as a missionary on. You
> dont see me expounding on Buddhism do you? Im Buddhist.
> Have been for 40 yrs. Yet you wont see me telling the
> group that if they arent Buddhist...something is wrong with
> them. And you NEVER see me starting a topic with
> alt.atheism in the newsgroups list. Nor alt.buddhism.

So, IOWs, you have no opinion? Well then, what the hell are
you even doin' here, fella?

Heck, 'round these parts we got a name for folks who have no
opinions -- "lurkers" -- and typically they just keep their
mouth shut. But apparently you didn't get the memo.

[Alex W.]

Which is but the bare minimum one should expect.

And it does nothing to address behaviour by public officials, community
leaders, lobbyists and other parties informally connected to the state
who let their religion dictate the stance and goals of their
organisations or the government policies they try to influence. Thus,
it may be no violation of the law and the constitution for politicians,
lobbyists and civil servants to conspire in a policy to ban foreign aid
funding to be disbursed to any charity that advocates abortion under any
circumstances or dispenses condoms for any reason. But it is still
loathsome behaviour of deep immorality that literally kills hundreds of
thousands. What should one do about that?

[Rudy Canoza]

No. There is a sound secular case to be made against abortion.

[duke]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:

>On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Well, you better talk to teddie the fairy about that. He thinks +/1 are one and
the same equation.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:01:35 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:

>On 11/20/2017 2:16 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:28:56 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

I didn't say you made a claim. Just present what you have is all.

>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>
>> Yep.
>
>Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.

You have religious faith that there is no God.

[duke]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:54:51 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:28 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
>> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >duke wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:40:50 -0800, "!! Atheist ------------------------------"
>> >> <notnot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Official definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"
>> >>> https://www.define-atheism.com/
>> >>>
>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>atheism - absence of belief in deities
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Atheism
>> >>
>> >> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
>> >> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
>> >> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
>> >> that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most
>> >> general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
>> >
>> >Yes, duke, that's just as we've been saying; gold star to you.
>> >"In a broad sense" all atheists reject (hence, absent) belief in a god.
>> >"In a narrower sense" (i.e. *some* atheists, I'm one) assert there are no gods.
>> >"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief".
>> >
>> >i.e. we don't believe you when you say there is a god.
>>
>> I quote the evidence. I've asked over and over for you atheists to present some > evidence to use to even come close to professing there is no God.
>
>And we've all given you our main reason: there is NO EVIDENCE that your god exists or any other god created for other religions.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our very existence is solid EVIDENCE of a supreme creator
- a 13.8 billion expansion from a point to the size of the universe today.

>Everything you and other
>have put forth has either been disproved or rejected for lack of reality. The
>fact that you and other theists refuse to accept this is your lack, not ours. We gave you what you requested.

Believe me, You have disproved nothing - NOTHING.

>> Whether you a) don't believe or b) reject, it would seen that you can offer a
>> reason, any reason, for your position.
>
>Yes, we can and have (many times) offered our reasons. You simply don't
>like them.

No, you have never offered so much as one idea <gasp> that our very multibillion
year existence doesn't come from God.

>> As a Roman Catholic, I have stated over and over my evidence (not proof) for the existence of God. Never has an atheist even tried to explain their position
>> other than pure unsupported desire to say "there is no God".

>You are a liar. You shouldn't deny that, but you will. Narcissists believe
>they are always right, even when they aren't. And you are definitely a narcissist. It's not even completely your fault. It's a mental illness that
>you share with other theist trolls.

Sorry. I have offered the evidence now for years - existence, creation. None
of you as ever tried to disprove it.,

>> That leaves us Roman Catholics no other choice but to ridicule your unsupported position.
>You speak only for yourself, Earl James Weber, not anyone else. And you lie
>yet again.

Nope, I know what I'm talking about.

[Tim]

Nope, you have zero evidence for any gods let alone yours.

> Our very existence is solid EVIDENCE of a supreme creator
> - a 13.8 billion expansion from a point to the size of the universe today.

Nope. It could have been anything - a pan-dimensional fart...

>
> >Everything you and other
> >have put forth has either been disproved or rejected for lack of reality. The
> >fact that you and other theists refuse to accept this is your lack, not ours. We gave you what you requested.
>
> Believe me, You have disproved nothing - NOTHING.

And believe me, all you have is empty talk.

>
> >> Whether you a) don't believe or b) reject, it would seen that you can offer a
> >> reason, any reason, for your position.
> >
> >Yes, we can and have (many times) offered our reasons. You simply don't
> >like them.
>
> No, you have never offered so much as one idea <gasp> that our very multibillion
> year existence doesn't come from God.

You've never offered a shred of evidence for your magic sky daddy.

>
> >> As a Roman Catholic, I have stated over and over my evidence (not proof) for the existence of God. Never has an atheist even tried to explain their position
> >> other than pure unsupported desire to say "there is no God".
>
> >You are a liar. You shouldn't deny that, but you will. Narcissists believe
> >they are always right, even when they aren't. And you are definitely a narcissist. It's not even completely your fault. It's a mental illness that
> >you share with other theist trolls.
>
> Sorry. I have offered the evidence now for years - existence, creation. None
> of you as ever tried to disprove it.,

You offer hat air, yawn.

>
> >> That leaves us Roman Catholics no other choice but to ridicule your unsupported position.
> >You speak only for yourself, Earl James Weber, not anyone else. And you lie
> >yet again.
>
> Nope, I know what I'm talking about.
>

No you don't.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

It is your private business.... unless you are a Muslim and have to
obey Sharia law.

The ten commandments are a personal moral code that you try to live up
to NOT one that you inflict on others.

Although some misguided persons do try to force everyone to live by the
Bible or the Qu'ran it isn't in the legal code.... at least not
directly. Those may be public policy that aligns with those values, and
they are legal as long as they are Constitutional. Banning religions
from public is NOT Constitutional.

>
>> and even at times in their own church using government force.
>>
>
>


--

That's Karma

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/22/2017 10:46 AM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> Well, you better talk to teddie about that.

Why?

> the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
>
>
> *****
> The Catholic Church is like a whorehouse full of HIV and pox
>
> Patrick Barker
> *****

[Delvin Benet]

Your fellow credulous dope Wieber did.

> Just present what you have is all.

How can I present something I don't have? I don't have any faith or
belief that there is a "god". You want me to present my lack of faith?
Isn't saying that a presentation of it?

>
>>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.
>
> You have religious faith that there is no God.

No, that's false. I have no faith that there is one.

"I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god" are
not equivalent statements.

> the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
>
>

> *****

[Cloud Hobbit]

Or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Ateism means not theism.

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/20/2017 12:56 PM, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of
>> deities. *****In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that
>> there are no deities.***** Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief
>> that any deities exist.
>
>

> And that absence of belief in deities, contains the belief that there
> isn't any deities.

No.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our very existence is solid EVIDENCE of a supreme creator
- a 13.8 billion expansion from a point to the size of the universe today.

_____________

Bullshit. The fact that we or anything exists is not proof of a God. It is only evidence that they exist it says nothing about why or how.

Without direct evidence from an alleged deity it's just more God did it nonsense demonstrating the theists lack of initiative to search for how and why things exist.

Without direct evidence from your imaginary God all you are doing is making a blank assertion. You have no direct evidence of your God. The only so called evidence comes from the bible which we already know is full of fictio, contradictions, massive editing, and the ideas of the people of that time when the gospels were written.

It is the abandonment of your kind if thinking that led to the age of reason, something theists lack. Imagine what Rome might look like had theists not destroyed so much of the incredible architecture. The Colosseum alone was a tremendous achievement that included elevators.

Your church has been responsible for countless incidents of barbaric acts in the name of your imaginary God. Most people would be ashamed to admit they subscribe to such an organization that preached live Thu neighbor whilst torturing them for blasphemy.

[Cloud Hobbit]

It is not faith that there is no God Duke, it is simply the only reasonable conclusion one can make based on the evidence or lack thereof.

In short, you have nothing.

[Bob]

On 11/22/2017 10:18 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> It is not faith that there is no God Duke, it is simply the only
> reasonable conclusion one can make based on the evidence or lack
> thereof.

And you're saying that you believe that "reasonable conclusion" is true,
even
though you can't prove it's true, right?

Guess what? That's faith. Whether you want to accept it, or not.

You have faith in your "reasonable conclusion".

I have faith that if you disagree with that, then you're a liar.

See how that works?

<smirk>

--
The unregenerate non-elect will always believe what another unregenerate
non-elect says, whereas the regenerate elect will intrinsically recognize
what the unregenerate non-elect says as a lie. Therefore those who were
predestined for Hell, will still end up in Hell, and those who are
predestined
for Heaven are still going to go to Heaven. Nothing in God's plan will
change.
For by convincing other unregenerate non-elects to believe his lies, he is
fulfilling that part of God's plan which God has predestined just for him.

Or, as the Gospel of John very concisely puts it:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door
but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who
enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper
opens.
The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them
out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep
follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but
they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."
[John 10:1-5]

[Andrew]

"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:8eed8661-928d-4fe5...@googlegroups.com...

> The fact that we or anything exists is not proof of a God. It
> is only evidence that they exist it says nothing about why or
> how.

We do know that, information that exists in a code
format may originate only from an intelligent source.

Such information does exist in every living thing on
this planet.

Ergo we may logically conclude that there does exist
---> some super intelligent Source. Without question.

Undeniable.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/22/2017 8:06 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message
> news:8eed8661-928d-4fe5...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> The fact that we or anything exists is not proof of a God. It is only
>> evidence that they exist it says nothing about why or
>> how.
>
> We do know that, information that exists in a code
> format may originate only from an intelligent source.

Bullshit.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Then you have misdiagnosed the mental illness, what you think is atheism
is actually agnosticism.

You definitions are confusing you.


--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
41 - It's hopeless to argue with the Liberals.... they are some form of
brain damaged situation, like a cross between Autism and Tourette's
syndrome, fact and logic are stimuli that can't be processed by their
brains and the resulting frustration causes a Tourette's syndrome
response of lies and curse words and sexual innuendo.

[Olrik]

Le 2017-11-22 à 14:20, #BeamMeUpScotty a écrit :
> On 11/22/2017 01:05 AM, Olrik wrote:

<a bit of snip>

>>> So then you believe that their God exists but choose NOT to believe in
>>> it despite believing in its existence....  you just choose to ignore God
>>> and the fact God exists?
>>
>> You have reading comprehension problems.
>>
>>> Yet Atheists are aggressively trying to purge God from the public
>>
>> It's called secularism.
>>
>> It's a good thing. You know that xians are "aggressively trying to purge
>> allah from the public", or that xians are "aggressively trying to purge
>> Yahwe from the public"?
>>
>> Religion should be banned from public life. Religious beliefs should be
>> private and personal.
>
>
> It is your private business.... unless you are a Muslim and have to
> obey Sharia law.

Or unless you're a jew and have to obey jewish laws, or a xian and have
to obey, well, jewish law.

A secular society does away with all that and have a civil, inclusive
set of laws.

> The ten commandments are a personal moral code that you try to live up
> to NOT one that you inflict on others.

?

> Although some misguided persons do try to force everyone to live by the
> Bible or the Qu'ran it isn't in the legal code.... at least not
> directly. Those may be public policy that aligns with those values, and
> they are legal as long as they are Constitutional. Banning religions
> from public is NOT Constitutional.

What's your point?

>>
>>> and even at times in their own church using government force.



--

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:44:50 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote:

>On 11/22/2017 10:46 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Both sides are without proof.

the dukester, American-American


*****

[duke]

I believe in God, you believe in no God. Both faith based.

>> Just present what you have is all.

>How can I present something I don't have? I don't have any faith or
>belief that there is a "god". You want me to present my lack of faith?
>Isn't saying that a presentation of it?

No God is you faith.

>>>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.
>>
>> You have religious faith that there is no God.

>No, that's false. I have no faith that there is one.

It's your faith that there is no God.

>"I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god" are
>not equivalent statements.

Your faith.


the dukester, American-American


*****

[Rick Johnson]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:30:46 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote:
[...]

> The unregenerate non-elect will always believe what another
> unregenerate non-elect says, whereas the regenerate elect
> will intrinsically recognize what the unregenerate non-
> elect says as a lie. Therefore those who were predestined
> for Hell, will still end up in Hell, and those who are
> predestined for Heaven are still going to go to Heaven.
> Nothing in God's plan will change. For by convincing other
> unregenerate non-elects to believe his lies, he is
> fulfilling that part of God's plan which God has
> predestined just for him.

Okay. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that what
you say is true. If it *IS*, then all the "non-elects" and
the "elects" have already been chosen by your "God". So why
bother proselytizing to us non-elects? Do you think you are
more powerful than your "God"?

My advice is that you should go home, read your bible, and
wait quitely for the second coming. Because you never know
what obscure versus they may ask you to quote when you get
up there, you know, to be "judged".

of course, if the "elect" have already been chosen, why the
hell would anyone need to be judged?

Ah, i get it!

So they'll know what social class to stuff you into.

Yes, makes perfect sense now.

Heck, even in heaven, somebody has to clean the toilets and
take out the garbage!

[Fresh souls percolate-up from the land of the living, and a
watchful tower guard near the pearly gates enthusiastically
yells out]

"Da lames!"

"Da lames!"

["God" (hearing the good news) spews his coffee, slams his
mocha capuccino on the table beside him, and springs from
his throne proclaiming]

"IT'S ABOUT BLOODLY DAMN TIME!"

[Composing himself, he sighs and laments]

"AIGH. THAT CRAFTY OLD DEVIL HAS BEEN STEALING ALL _MY_ SOULS :-("

[Rudely waving away a small army of servants who are
attending to his every personal need, God walks briskly
toward the gates to greet the new arrivals with a stylish
1%er swagger. Arriving, he adjusts his collar and composes a
sleazy smile, just in time to say]

"Hello, and velcome to Fantasy Island!"

[The arrivals are in a state of shock, but before they can
respond -- and in a highly coordinated effort that seems to
be strangely rehearsed (o_O) -- a number of god's assistants
quickly place a plunger in each of the new arrival's hands,
and to their reserved collective astonishment (O_O), he
continues]

"And just in time too! As we've had nasty sewage blockage
for hours."

[Rick Johnson]

Olrik wrote:
> Le 2017-11-22 à 14:20, #BeamMeUpScotty a écrit :

[...]

> > It is your private business.... unless you are a Muslim
> > and have to obey Sharia law.
>
> Or unless you're a jew and have to obey jewish laws, or a
> xian and have to obey, well, jewish law.

The concept of an "esoteric caveat" is lost on the theist. ;-)

[Delvin Benet]

No. I have no belief in any god. Not faith based - lack of faith.

>>> Just present what you have is all.
>
>> How can I present something I don't have? I don't have any faith or
>> belief that there is a "god". You want me to present my lack of faith?
>> Isn't saying that a presentation of it?
>
> No God is you faith.

No, it's not faith at all. It's lack of faith.

>>>>>> Until then...its simply faith.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. It's absence of belief. That isn't belief or faith.
>>>
>>> You have religious faith that there is no God.
>
>> No, that's false. I have no faith that there is one.
>
> It's your faith that there is no God.

No, that's false. I've told you: I *don't* have belief (faith) in any god.

>> "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god" are
>> not equivalent statements.
>
> Your faith.

Not faith.

> the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
>
>

> *****

[Delvin Benet]

On 11/23/2017 6:11 AM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:44:50 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2017 10:46 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:00:23 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyc> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/20/2017 2:18 PM, duke wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:07:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/20/2017 12:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

> the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
>
>

> *****

[Robert Carnegie]

Then why isn't it?

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:49:47 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote:

>No, that's false. I have no faith that there is one.

Wrong. You have faith there is no God.

the dukester, American-American


*****

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:18:09 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
<youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is not faith that there is no God Duke, it is simply the only reasonable conclusion one can make based on the evidence or lack thereof.

Sorry. My faith is in God. Your faith is in there is no God.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:15:40 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
<youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our very existence is solid EVIDENCE of a supreme creator
>- a 13.8 billion expansion from a point to the size of the universe today.

>Bullshit. The fact that we or anything exists is not proof of a God. It is only evidence that they exist it says nothing about why or how.

God is the only reasonable answer unless you call the universe itself as
sentient.