Attention, Atheists!!!!!!!!

[Joe Bruno]

Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.

Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
in the Book of Exodus:

http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html

If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.


You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many of you claim the bible

snip

“It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
history, and pizza.”
-Penn Jillette

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!

[Joe Bruno]

Obviously you can't read English.Why not try a different language??
Maybe you'll have more luck with Russian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DA1y_s2D5M

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On May 2, 5:50 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

> Obviously you can't read English.

snip

Perhaps nobody gives a fuck what you have to say. Occam's Razor might
be the right tool in this case. After all, other posts in English are
receiving replies..

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

[Mike Painter]

On 5/2/2012 2:06 PM, Joe Bruno wrote:
> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>
> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> in the Book of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>

Dear QE II,
The first four deal with religious observation, not shared by most of
the world.
The fifth offers rewards for a certain position. It also implies that if
a child dies it did so because it did not follow the rule.

Six comes in two versions and murder is a fact of law not morality.
Seven is a matter of definition, so at best offers a relative morality.
Eight might have some morality associates with it, but again stealing is
a legal concept.
Nine talks about neighbors and not the world at large.
Ten is just silly even if your male neighbor has a nice ass.

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, panam...@hotmail.com rade wrote:
> On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Many of you claim the bible
>
> snip
>
> “It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
> history, and pizza.”
> -Penn Jillette
>

Penn can't read, either???????????????????That makes two of you.
He's also pathetically wrong about the history part.
Archaeologists have proven that many of the biblical tales of divine miracles
were actually real natural events that were misinterpreted by people who had
no knowledge of science.The tale of God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah, was actually an earthquake.The same area has had occasional earthquakes in modern times.

It is very probable that Joshua's biblical destruction of Jericho by blowing a horn was also an earthquake. God probably did not actually part the Red Sea, either.
Moses probably led the Hebrews thru a nearby shallow swamp called the "Sea of Reeds"where the water was only a few inches deep.

I see you're still a chronic liar and coward who ignored my proof about morality. You disgust me, little man.

[sbalneav]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.

It doesn't.

> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> in the Book of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.

Question: If I commit EVERY ONE of those sins, every single one, and then
truly repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my one true Lord and
Saviour, will I go to Hell for eternity?

> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.

What, now you're *meeting* them? That the 0.4% that are confessed atheists?

(guffaw).

[sbalneav]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, panam...@hotmail.com rade wrote:
>> On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Many of you claim the bible
>>
>> snip
>>

>> ???It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
>> history, and pizza.???

>> -Penn Jillette
>>
> Penn can't read, either???????????????????That makes two of you.
> He's also pathetically wrong about the history part.
> Archaeologists have proven that many of the biblical tales of divine miracles
> were actually real natural events that were misinterpreted by people who had
> no knowledge of science.The tale of God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah, was actually an earthquake.The same area has had occasional earthquakes in modern times.
>
> It is very probable that Joshua's biblical destruction of Jericho by blowing a horn was also an earthquake. God probably did not actually part the Red Sea, either.
> Moses probably led the Hebrews thru a nearby shallow swamp called the "Sea of Reeds"where the water was only a few inches deep.
>
> I see you're still a chronic liar and coward who ignored my proof about morality. You disgust me, little man.

So, if God didn't destroy Sodom and Gommorrah, didn't knock down any walls, and
didn't part any seas, what *did* he do?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Many of you claim the bible
>
>snip
>
>“It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
>history, and pizza.”
>-Penn Jillette

Why do the morons imagine we "claim" anything about the Bible?

(Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)

It's nothing special to us - just the writings from somebody else's
religion so we don't treat it as the be-all and end-all believers do.

Nor are we desperate to rationalise away the awkward bits like he is.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 5:50 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> Obviously you can't read English.
>
>snip
>
>Perhaps nobody gives a fuck what you have to say. Occam's Razor might
>be the right tool in this case. After all, other posts in English are
>receiving replies..

What he means is his weaseling doesn't fool us.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:59:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
>> you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>
>What, now you're *meeting* them? That the 0.4% that are confessed atheists?

He's the kind of religious nutter that makes normal people including
atheists go out of their way to avoid him.

>(guffaw).

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

I've never made that claim, and from what I read here most atheists
don't make that claim either. Usually the commentary I see regarding
this subject is that there is a combination of good and bad stories in
The Bible, and that a lot of the bad stories are pretty horrific (they
include, among other things, betrayal, lying, killing, genocide, rape,
beastiality, etc.).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Why do gods always have the most unimpressive representatives?"
-- David "Buddy Thunder" Arthur (February 15, 2012)

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

You appear to be arguing with yourself, but it's coming across as
incoherent. Did you recently stop taking medication?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Are you on drugs? Should you be?"
-- Elizabeth Frantes (in response to a crazy person)

[chibiabos]

In article <jnseca$buk$3...@dont-email.me>, sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net>
wrote:

I understand the problem religitards have with Sodom, but what did
Gomorrah ever do?

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Richo]

On May 3, 7:06 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>
> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> in the Book of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>

Dear Liz,
The first 4 are not moral injunctions at all, but matters of religious
ritual observance.

Then there is the one about respecting your mother and father - which
is good general guidance - but this isn't an absolute - if your father
is a drunk who beats your mother and rapes your sister then he
probably should not be respected.

The next 3 are don't lie, don't murder, don't steal.
That's good moral guidance but its also pretty damn obvious - people
don't need the Master Wizard of the Universe to tell them those - they
can figure it out for themselves.

As Hitchens has said its foolish (and insulting) to believe that the
Jews had made it all the way to Mt Sinai without ever knowing that
murder, theft and lying are wrong. It's simply not believable.

The next commandments are rather odd - they are about "coveting" -
about wanting and desiring - your neighbors property - his ox, his
servants, his wife.

This is essentially the mandating of thought crime - yes its immoral
to steal your neighbors property - but should it be declared to be a
moral crime to *desire* your neighbors property?
This is problematic.

Also you see here the attitude of the writers in regarding women as
property - in exactly the same way his livestock and his servants are
his property. Not a very moral point of view from a more enlightened
vantage.

> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.

And here you insult us all for the misdeeds of a few - not a very
moral way to behave Liz.

Mark.

[sbalneav]

I dunno, inside the splash zone maybe? Eeeewwwww.

> -chib
>

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:29142292.5.1335992798697.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndc3:

> Subject: Attention, Atheists!!!!!!!!

Fuck off, Butterbars.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

Proud to be everything the right wing hates.

[Yap]

On May 3, 5:06 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.

We deny claiming anything about the bible which is irrelevant to us.

>
> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> in the Book of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>
> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.

You are an idiot who defends the bible, yet you do not convert to
Christianity?
What a loon.

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:30899055.2370.1335998611416.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9:

> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, panam...@hotmail.com
> rade wrote:
>> On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Many of you claim the bible
>>
>> snip
>>
>> “It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
>> history, and pizza.”
>> -Penn Jillette
>>
> Penn can't read, either???????????????????That makes two of you.

The bible is bullshit and you're an idiot.

We;ve had this discussion before.

[Yap]

This Bruno idiot has no sense of reality.
In our world now, there are laws (actually moral disciplines) that
number by the thousands and covering all areas of finance, crime,
legal, commerce, social, and many others.

The 10 commandments only cover a tiny winy part of our moral laws...it
only tries to restrict family members at the time, but also happened
to enlighten us that the society then was filled with thieves, immoral
acts, and barbaric behavior.

[Doc Smartass]

sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in news:jnseca$buk$3...@dont-email.me:

He practically invented nonexistence. That's something. Or nothing....

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:01:27 -0500, Doc Smartass
<Fortbr...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:

>Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:30899055.2370.1335998611416.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, panam...@hotmail.com
>> rade wrote:
>>> On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Many of you claim the bible
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> “It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
>>> history, and pizza.”
>>> -Penn Jillette
>>>
>> Penn can't read, either???????????????????That makes two of you.
>
>The bible is bullshit and you're an idiot.
>
>We;ve had this discussion before.

Christians can't get their minds around the idea that non-Christians
treat the Bible as merely the beliefs of somebody else's religion.

Even though that's how they themselves see all the other similar
books.

[Yap]

On May 3, 7:32 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
>

> Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>
> > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> > in the Book of Exodus:
>
> >http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>
> > You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> > you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>
> I've never made that claim, and from what I read here most atheists
> don't make that claim either.  Usually the commentary I see regarding
> this subject is that there is a combination of good and bad stories in
> The Bible, and that a lot of the bad stories are pretty horrific (they
> include, among other things, betrayal, lying, killing, genocide, rape,
> beastiality, etc.).

But this Bruno idiot choses to ignore those very evil stories and
harping on his hatred of atheists.

Even the "good" stories were irrelevant to mankind, just claims
without possibility of verification.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:

> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>
> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> in the Book of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>

Pleased to meet you, your Majesty.
<doffs cap, bows head and shakes gloved hand>

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Yap]

On May 3, 9:07 am, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 7:06 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>
> > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> > in the Book of Exodus:
>
> >http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>
> Dear Liz,
> The first 4 are not moral injunctions at all, but matters of religious
> ritual observance.

Yet he could not differentiate.

>
> Then there is the one about respecting your mother and father - which
> is good general guidance - but this isn't an absolute - if your father
> is a drunk who beats your mother and rapes your sister then he
> probably should not be respected.

That is grave crime, deserves death sentence.

>
> The next 3 are don't lie, don't murder, don't steal.
> That's good moral guidance but its also pretty damn obvious - people
> don't need the Master Wizard of the Universe to tell them those - they
> can figure it out for themselves.

Obviously Bruno will lie, will murder and steal......even now, he is
lying.
So, what is the use of bible? The priests commit molesting crime in
the thousands.

>
> As Hitchens has said its foolish (and insulting) to believe that the
> Jews had made it all the way to Mt Sinai without ever knowing that
> murder, theft and lying are wrong. It's simply not believable.

Or it simply means that the Jews then were a bunch of barbarians?

>
> The next commandments are rather odd - they are about "coveting" -
> about wanting and desiring - your neighbors property - his ox, his
> servants, his wife.

Barbaric behavior was apparent then..........

>
> This is essentially the mandating of thought crime - yes its immoral
> to steal your neighbors property - but should it be declared to be a
> moral crime to *desire* your neighbors property?
> This is problematic.

We modern man can envy the properties of our neighbor, but never have
any thought about unlawful desire.

>
> Also you see here the attitude of the writers in regarding women as
> property - in exactly the same way his livestock and his servants are
> his property. Not a very moral point of view from a more enlightened
> vantage.

Those writers were reflecting a lot of immoral acts and thoughts
during the time?
I can't imagine how chaotic those Jewish people were.

>
> > You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> > you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>
> And here you insult us all for the misdeeds of a few - not a very
> moral way to behave Liz.

As compared to all the immoral and indecent Jewish society then.
Bruno never talked about bible being the original scripture for the
Jews only, nothing to do with the world population at all.

>
> Mark.

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On May 2, 6:43 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, panamfl...@hotmail.com rade wrote:
> > On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Many of you claim the bible
>
> > snip
>
> > “It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
> > history, and pizza.”
> > -Penn Jillette
>
> Penn can't read, either???????????????????That makes two of you.
> He's also pathetically wrong about the history part.
> Archaeologists have proven that many of the biblical tales of divine miracles
> were actually real natural events that were misinterpreted by people who had
> no knowledge of science.

Your lack of citation for your claim is noted..although not quite
unexpected.

>The tale of God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah, was actually an earthquake.The same area has had occasional earthquakes in modern times.
>
> It is very probable that Joshua's biblical destruction of Jericho by blowing a horn was also an earthquake. God probably did not actually part the Red Sea, either.
> Moses probably led the Hebrews thru a nearby shallow swamp called the "Sea of Reeds"where the water was only a few inches deep.

Hmm. Can't help but notice that you've failed to post up a link to
anything that suggests that as well.

OTOH, I've seen evidence that most of that nonsense can be dismissed
as legend.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Ancient/dp/0684869136

> I see you're still a chronic liar and coward who ignored my proof about morality.

Oh, that whole theistic whining about human morality being anything
other than an advanced version of altruism (which has been noticed in
other animals who live in social groups) has long been discarded. Your
ancient tome isn't "proof" of anything other than the fact that
ancient humans had the same altruistic desires as other social
animals, but lacked the ability to properly describe such behavior. No
small wonder the authors of those books screwed it up.

> You disgust me, little man.

Bah. I'm an atheist. My very existence `disgusts' the ignorant & the
stupid eight days a week. Take a number and wait in line, you fucking
moron.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain

Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:1130817.3417.1335995448001.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjb15:

> O <stamp>

Fuck off, Butterbars.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

These references to santorum are ruining this thread (which was
already in pretty bad shape from the start).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Janitor janitor, you have no hope; I have more ink than you have soap."
-- Anonymous prolific graffiti artist

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"
>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Many of you claim the bible
> >
> >snip
> >
> >“It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
> >history, and pizza.”
> >-Penn Jillette
>
> Why do the morons imagine we "claim" anything about the Bible?

Here is part of a post by Free Lunch:

No one actually gets their morality from the Bible, despite
the false claims of some believers that the Bible is the foundation of
morality.

>
> (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
> not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)

The Tanakh includes the Torah, ignoramus. The Torah is the first 5 books
of the Tanakh. You're lying again.I spoke at length to Yap on both the Torah and the Tanakh which includes the Torah when he asked me questions on those books.I mention those books when I consider them to be relevant, not to amuse
your worthless, ignorant, lying ass.
>
I made this challenge before and I'll make it again-ask me questions on Torah,Talmud, Tanakh or any other part of Judaism and then we'll see
what my religious background is. You're afraid to do that, aren't you?
You're a chickenshit COWARD with the IQ of a carrot and the morals of a cockroach.

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:14:36 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"
>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 5:50 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> Obviously you can't read English.
> >
> >snip
> >
> >Perhaps nobody gives a fuck what you have to say. Occam's Razor might
> >be the right tool in this case. After all, other posts in English are
> >receiving replies..
>
> What he means is his weaseling doesn't fool us.

I meant you are functionally illiterate in that you don't understand what you read.You and other A's have proven that to me over and over.

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"
>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Many of you claim the bible
> >
> >snip
> >
> >“It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
> >history, and pizza.”
> >-Penn Jillette
>
> Why do the morons imagine we "claim" anything about the Bible?
>
> (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
> not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)
>

LEE IS LYING AGAIN.Here is a previous post I made:



On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:33:34 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 7:49:12 PM UTC-7, Yap wrote:
> > On May 3, 3:45 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:12:44 AM UTC-7, Samuel Harrigon wrote:
> > > > Attention alt. atheism!
> > > > Every atheist on this newsgroup is an official Christian!
> > > > You now all love Jesus Christ, the Savior of this world.
> > > > Anyone saying that they are still atheist is in denial. But by lying,
> > > > you are breaking one of the Ten Commandments.
> > > > Might as well just come around and admit the truth. You love Jesus now
> > > > and you know it.
> > > > I suggest you start coming to church, even to the Good Old Gospel Ship
> > > > Church! We'll gladly accept all of you new converts!
> > > > If you come to the Fire and Brimstone Bar and Grill after church,
> > > > you'll get a discount on Heavenly Hot Wings, or our Savior Sausage
> > > > Pizza, maybe grab a Bible Burger. For dessert we have Jesus Jell-O and
> > > > Christ Cake.
> > > > Anyway, it's nice to know all of you brand new converts! Welcome to
> > > > the happy world of Jesus! You will love it. I'm glad you all love
> > > > Jesus now. =)
> > >
> > > > Rev. Samuel Harrigon
> > > > Good Old Gospel Ship Church
> > > > Fire and Brimstone Bar and Grill
> > >
> > > I'm a Jew, sonny, and I completely reject your attempt at conversion.
> > > Take your "mystery of faith",your idol worship,your Trinity, and your
> > > distortions of the Hebrew bible and stick them where the sun don't shine.
> >
> > You are a Jew, as well as a Christian?
>
> I'm not a Christian and never was.
>
> > What about Judaism being the beloved belief of Jews?
>
> It still is and has been for over 3000 years.Many Jews over the years have preferred death to conversion.
> >
> > Is torah the same as bible or are they interchangeable?
>
> The Jewish bible is the Tanach, what you call the Old Testament.
> The Torah is the first five books of the Tanach.
>
> Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers and Deuteronomy.
>
> The Torah is the most important book in Judaism.It contains many things, but
> the most important part of it is Jewish or Mosaic law. Some of that law was
> designed for a vastly different time and culture and modern Jews don't follow
> all of it.Some of the Mosaic laws are suggestions rather than mandates and not
> all are mandatory. That's why we have rabbis, to tell us which ones we must follow and which are optional.

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 7:23:03 PM UTC-7, Smiler wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
> >
> > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> > in the Book of Exodus:
> >
> > http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
> >
> > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
> >
>
> Pleased to meet you, your Majesty.
> <doffs cap, bows head and shakes gloved hand>

Hey, you!!! Don't bow so low-I think you're trying to look up inside my dress!!!!We send perverts to the Tower of London, and they never get out.
>

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
> not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)

Mr Lee is LYING AGAIN:Here is a previous post I made:

On Monday, February 7, 2011 1:12:45 AM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:05 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 1:05 am, The Judge <ju...@moscowmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 2, 5:10 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 2, 6:47 pm, The Judge <ju...@moscowmail.com> wrote:> You claim you are more educated and know more about religion than the
> > > > > believers?
> >
> > > > I know more in general than believers in general - yeah.
> > > > You can find particular believers eg priests who will know a lot about
> > > > their religion than me - but the general believing member of the
> > > > public will know a lot less.
> >
> > > > > Here is your chance to prove it.
> >
> > > > I dont feel the need.
> > > > I have proved it for myself many hundreds of times over.
> >
> > > > You have 2 hours.
> >
> > > > > 1.What language did Jesus speak?
> >
> > > > Aramaic if he existed. Nothing if he didnt exist.
> >
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if he was the son of
> > > > God?
> >
> > > > > 2.What does the Talmud say about self-defense?
> >
> > > > It says "go for it".
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if God exists?
> >
> > > > > 3.The words “OldTestament”are used by
> >
> > > > > Christians.What do Jews call it?
> >
> > > > Tanakh.
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if God exists?
> >
> > > > > 4.When did Judaism begin?Where?
> >
> > > > No one really knows - religions evolve over a great lenght of time.
> > > > The majority of the Tanakh started to be written dow about 600BC.
> > > > It mythologically begins with Abraham of course.
> >
> > > > > 5.In what year did the ancient Hebrews become Jews?
> >
> > > > I doubt anyone knows this.
> >
> > > > > 6.Who was Ezekiel?What was his vision?
> >
> > > > A prophet, he had weird visions. I recall some flaming thing with the
> > > > faces of beasts.
> > > > Its very difficult reading.
> > > > He probably ate some bad mushrooms, poor guy.
> >
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if God exists?
> >
> > > > > 7.What are the Kasruth laws?Where can they be found?
> >
> > > > Kashrut?
> > > > Are they the dietry laws found in Deuteronomy and other places.
> >
> > > > How will this information help you know if God is real or imaginaryt?
> > > > It wont.
> >
> > > > > 8.Which books comprise the Torah?
> >
> > > > The first 5. (Genesis, Exodus, Deut. Numbers and the other one.)
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if God exists?
> >
> > > > > 9.What are tractates?
> >
> > > > Dont know. Something like tentacles?
> > > > 8-)
> > > > Whatever it is I bet my left testicle it will not help decide if God
> > > > is real or imaginary.
> >
> > > > > 10.Why do Orthodox Jews keep 2 sets of dishes?
> >
> > > > Dietry laws - have to keep seperate foods containing milk and those
> > > > containing meat.
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if God exists?
> >
> > > > > 11.How many disciples did Jesus have?
> >
> > > > An unkown number. You could say modern christians wer his disciples
> > > > which would put the number at over 1 billion.
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if Jesus was God or
> > > > even existed?
> >
> > > > > 12.Did Jesus Create the new religion we call Christianity?
> >
> > > > No - he was a Jew - born and died a Jew.
> > > > And he might not even have existed.
> >
> > > > > If not, who did?
> >
> > > > Paul (Saul) - he had a vision of Christ - never actually met Jesus as
> > > > a man.
> >
> > > > > 13.Which six Hebrew words begin most Jewish prayers?
> >
> > > > > What do they mean in English?
> >
> > > > Dunno - it would be something like "Lord you are greta and mighty "
> > > > Religious people are always telling God how mighty and powerful and
> > > > Lordly he is - its sick.
> >
> > > > > 14What does the Talmud say about Jewish.burials?
> >
> > > > Quite a few things I imagine - I know it says something about how
> > > > quickly it should take place (before sunset on the day of death I
> > > > think).
> > > > Does it matter? Would knowing this help decide if God exists?
> >
> > > > > 15.What 2 branches of Islam dominate the Middle East?
> >
> > > > Sunni and Shia - it revolves cheifly around who is the true line of
> > > > authority back to the Prophet Mohammad.
> >
> > > > This information will not help you know if God is real or ever sent
> > > > messages to Mohammad.
> >
> > > > > 16.What does it mean to a Catholic to take communion?
> >
> > > > Its eating the body and drinking the blood of christ. Eewwwwww!
> >
> > > > This information will not help you know if God is real or If Jesus was
> > > > Divine.
> >
> > > > > 17.What does confirmation mean to a Catholic?
> >
> > > > Its a ceremony where a young person afirms that they are a true
> > > > believing member of the church - its a commitment to your faith as an
> > > > "adult" member of the church.
> >
> > > > > 18.What are the 3 main branches of Judaism?
> >
> > > > Orthodox, Conservative and reform.
> >
> > > > > How do they differ from each other?
> >

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 6:07:39 PM UTC-7, Richo wrote:
> On May 3, 7:06 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
> >
> > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> > in the Book of Exodus:
> >
> > http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
> >
> > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
> >
>
> Dear Liz,
> The first 4 are not moral injunctions at all, but matters of religious
> ritual observance.

So what???The TC does contain moral injunctions, which was my point.

>
> Then there is the one about respecting your mother and father - which
> is good general guidance - but this isn't an absolute - if your father
> is a drunk who beats your mother and rapes your sister then he
> probably should not be respected.

It was an absolute in ancient Israel, bucko.

>
> The next 3 are don't lie, don't murder, don't steal.
> That's good moral guidance but its also pretty damn obvious - people
> don't need the Master Wizard of the Universe to tell them those - they
> can figure it out for themselves.

That's not the way Jews operate.We rely on the Torah to give us all the rules.

>
> As Hitchens has said its foolish (and insulting) to believe that the
> Jews had made it all the way to Mt Sinai without ever knowing that
> murder, theft and lying are wrong. It's simply not believable.
>
> The next commandments are rather odd - they are about "coveting" -
> about wanting and desiring - your neighbors property - his ox, his
> servants, his wife.
>
> This is essentially the mandating of thought crime - yes its immoral
> to steal your neighbors property - but should it be declared to be a
> moral crime to *desire* your neighbors property?
> This is problematic.

Judaism has a very negative attitude toward greed and that's what that passage
means.Jews are required to give to charity.

>
> Also you see here the attitude of the writers in regarding women as
> property - in exactly the same way his livestock and his servants are
> his property. Not a very moral point of view from a more enlightened
> vantage.

That was the prevailing more in ancient Israel, where the TC come from.
Women were considered property.

>
> > You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> > you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>
> And here you insult us all for the misdeeds of a few - not a very
> moral way to behave Liz.

It's a hell of a lot more than a few that do that.if it were just a few, I wouldn't get so angry about it.
>
>

[Waldo Tunnel]

On May 3, 2:58 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote

[...]

> > (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
> > not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)
>
> LEE IS LYING AGAIN.Here is a previous post I made:

Let me explain it to you. Lee is an elderly, irrational atheist. He is
self important and pompous which means he can never admit to being
wrong. He prefers not to be held to the same standards he rigorously
holds others to. The end result is that he is a disgrace to atheists
everywhere and guess what? He doesn't care that he is.

[sbalneav]

Santorum ruining your threads? Try a combination of Borax and Bleach.

[MarkA]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:

> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>
> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear in the Book
> of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>
>

> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that you often
> remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.

It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is not the original source
of morality, and that much of what it teaches is grossly immoral. So, the
reader has to use his own, external standards of morality, to tell the
difference. And, if you have external standards, why bother with the
Bible in the first place?

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

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:28:50 -0400
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
> >
> > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear in
> > the Book of Exodus:
> >
> > http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
> >
> > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
> >
> > You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that you
> > often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>
> It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is not the original
> source of morality, and that much of what it teaches is grossly
> immoral. So, the reader has to use his own, external standards of
> morality, to tell the difference. And, if you have external
> standards, why bother with the Bible in the first place?

Peer pressure.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Billions upon billions of years of random mutations can lead to
astonishing results. But then, so can 6,000 year of inbreeding."
-- Tronscend Furu (April 6, 2012)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:28:50 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>>
>> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear in the Book
>> of Exodus:
>>
>> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>>
>> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>>
>> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that you often
>> remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.

What a wonderful example of theist honesty, integrity and human
decency. NOT.

>It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is not the original source
>of morality, and that much of what it teaches is grossly immoral. So, the
>reader has to use his own, external standards of morality, to tell the
>difference. And, if you have external standards, why bother with the
>Bible in the first place?

The moron imagines it is moral to tell us to worship his pretend
friend and to keep its sabbath.

Pity he himself doesn't obey the one about not bearing false witness

.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

"Ha ha! Eye didn't know you were Scottish!"
-- Phil Ken Sebben

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"You told the truth up to a point, but a lie of omission is still a
lie."
-- Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (cautioning a Cadet)

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 19:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 7:32 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
> > Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
> >
> > > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> > > in the Book of Exodus:
> >
> > >http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
> >
> > > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
> >
> > > You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> > > you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
> >
> > I've never made that claim, and from what I read here most atheists
> > don't make that claim either.  Usually the commentary I see
> > regarding this subject is that there is a combination of good and
> > bad stories in The Bible, and that a lot of the bad stories are
> > pretty horrific (they include, among other things, betrayal, lying,
> > killing, genocide, rape, beastiality, etc.).
>
> But this Bruno idiot choses to ignore those very evil stories and
> harping on his hatred of atheists.

Between the prosyletizing and the atheist-bashing it leaves one to
wonder if he has anything constructive to contribute.

> Even the "good" stories were irrelevant to mankind, just claims
> without possibility of verification.

Religion doesn't have enough L.O.V.E.

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Science does not rely on the highly unreliable eyewitness accounts, it
relies on testable evidence."
-- Free Lunch (April 7, 2012)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 08:55:50 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:28:50 -0400
>MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>
>> > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>> >
>> > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear in
>> > the Book of Exodus:
>> >
>> > http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>> >
>> > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>> >
>> > You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that you
>> > often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>>
>> It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is not the original
>> source of morality, and that much of what it teaches is grossly
>> immoral. So, the reader has to use his own, external standards of
>> morality, to tell the difference. And, if you have external
>> standards, why bother with the Bible in the first place?
>
>Peer pressure.

But what puzzles me is why these morons imagine it is the only reason
for decent behaviour, and why they nastily tell those who manage to
behave well to others, that without it they can't be the decent people
they are.

[duke]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:28:50 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>>
>> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear in the Book
>> of Exodus:
>>
>> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>>
>> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>>
>>
>> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that you often
>> remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>
>It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is not the original source
>of morality, and that much of what it teaches is grossly immoral.

Actually you're very wrong. What the bible, especially the OT, shows is the
evil ways of man and God's call for man to overcome them.

So, the
>reader has to use his own, external standards of morality, to tell the
>difference. And, if you have external standards, why bother with the
>Bible in the first place?

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****

[duke]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 08:55:50 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:28:50 -0400
>MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>
>> > Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>> >
>> > Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear in
>> > the Book of Exodus:
>> >
>> > http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>> >
>> > If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>> >
>> > You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that you
>> > often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>>
>> It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is not the original
>> source of morality, and that much of what it teaches is grossly
>> immoral. So, the reader has to use his own, external standards of
>> morality, to tell the difference. And, if you have external
>> standards, why bother with the Bible in the first place?
>
>Peer pressure.

And hence everyone of you makes the same mistake.

[duke]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:59:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>

>It doesn't.

>
>> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
>> in the Book of Exodus:
>>
>> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>>
>> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>

>Question: If I commit EVERY ONE of those sins, every single one, and then
>truly repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my one true Lord and
>Saviour, will I go to Hell for eternity?

Not if you truly repent and ask God for forgiveness. Of course, a few humans
will still be looking for your scalp.

>> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
>> you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>

>What, now you're *meeting* them? That the 0.4% that are confessed atheists?
>
>(guffaw).

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 13:55:59 +0000 (UTC)

Are you recommending turning the Tide, or turning other cheeks?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely,
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down
the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."
-- Douglas Noel Adams, Satirical Statistical Scientist

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

It's a control tactic, and a very deeply designed one, for the primary
goal of those who are hungry for power is to control the masses -- the
tools are purely incidental, and if there was something more effective
than religion it would become the replacement in a heartbeat.

One of the useful aspects of religious power is how easy it is to
automate the development of infectious attitudes. In particular,
fanatical lunatic tools are like perpetual variations of armies of those
little wind-up toys in that they start walking/driving in the desired
direction without regard for whomever they encounter as they push
endlessly against brick walls, walk through fire, dive off cliffs,
etc., and with the persistence of an unusually stubborn cat (albeit
usually without even a cat's innate cleverness).

Unfortunately the masses are often unwittingly left to fend for
themselves against a barrage of tools and tactics which operate in an
extremely wide range from subtlety to the overwhelmingly obvious, often
straddling a combination of direct targeting and just "randomly hoping
something sticks" by chance due to the high quantity of ever-adapting
nonsense being endlessly and restlessly foisted and catapulted into
society at large.

This is obviously also a diversion tactic that keeps the masses busy,
even when they do accept what's been overwhelmingly forced upon them,
to minimize threats of antidisestablishmentariansm almost like a
preemptive counter-strike. Other diversions aimed at those competing
for the same reigns of power, such as other religions or those who
aren't followers of any faith-based tools, is where this counter-strike
becomes more obvious.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's
thoughts, lives, and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions,
perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
-- Unknown

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:45:46 -0500
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:59:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
> <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> > Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
> >
> > It doesn't.
> >
> >> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> >> in the Book of Exodus:
> >>
> >> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
> >>
> >> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
> >
> > Question: If I commit EVERY ONE of those sins, every single one,
> > and then truly repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my one
> > true Lord and Saviour, will I go to Hell for eternity?
>
> Not if you truly repent and ask God for forgiveness. Of course, a
> few humans will still be looking for your scalp.

[snip - quoted text without a response]

Shouldn't God be protecting those who repent from these scalpers? If
not, then what are the actual real-world membership benefits?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."
-- Carl Sagan

[Uncle Vic]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:29142292.5.1335992798697.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndc3:

> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>

> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> in the Book of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>
>

> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that
> you often remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>

Yeah. Real important stuff, Bruno. Where is the morality in "Thou shalt
have no other gods before me"? I prefer laws that were written for today's
society, not for a bunch of amoral sheep herders who lived in the Middle
East some 2000 years ago...

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
Matthew 6:5-6
"Keep thy religion to thyself"

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Uncle Vic]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:30899055.2370.1335998611416.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9:

> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, panam...@hotmail.com
> rade wrote:
>> On May 2, 5:06˙pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Many of you claim the bible
>>

>> snip

>>
>> "It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
>> history, and pizza."

>> -Penn Jillette
>>
> Penn can't read, either

Cite. I don't believe your claim.

[Uncle Vic]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:30899055.2370.1335998611416.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9:

> Archaeologists have proven that many of the biblical tales of divine
> miracles were actually real natural events that were misinterpreted by
> people who had no knowledge of science.The tale of God's destruction
> of Sodom and Gommorrah, was actually an earthquake.

You made that up, or you believe someone who told you that. Or can you
substantiate that bullshit claim?

[sbalneav]

> Are you recommending turning the Tide...

If I do that, I may end up in a whirlpool.

[sbalneav]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:59:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>>> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
>>> in the Book of Exodus:
>>>
>>> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>>>
>>> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>>
>>Question: If I commit EVERY ONE of those sins, every single one, and then
>>truly repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my one true Lord and
>>Saviour, will I go to Hell for eternity?
>
> Not if you truly repent and ask God for forgiveness. Of course, a few humans
> will still be looking for your scalp.

So then there's no moral teaching, right? I can sin as much as I want, so long
as I repent afterwards.

Humans seem to be much more the hardasses than God. With God, all I gotta do
is feel sorry. Humans don't care how sorry I am, I'll still have to serve jail
time.

But what's a few years in a cell when my eternal existence is secure? Too bad
the hindu I raped and murdered gets to go to hell for eternity. Oh, well, they
should have repented while they had the chance, like I did.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 14:12:27 -0500
Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:30899055.2370.1335998611416.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9:
> > On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, panam...@hotmail.com
> > rade wrote:

> >> On May 2, 5:06ÿpm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Many of you claim the bible
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> "It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
> >> history, and pizza."
> >> -Penn Jillette
> >>
> > Penn can't read, either
>
> Cite. I don't believe your claim.

His math seems right, which probably implies that he's literate.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I am told that a horseshoe will bring you good luck whether you
believe in it or not."
-- Neils Bohr

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 14:18:41 -0500
Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:30899055.2370.1335998611416.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9:
>
> > Archaeologists have proven that many of the biblical tales of divine
> > miracles were actually real natural events that were misinterpreted
> > by people who had no knowledge of science.The tale of God's
> > destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah, was actually an earthquake.
>
> You made that up, or you believe someone who told you that. Or can
> you substantiate that bullshit claim?

I've heard these sorts of claims from many people, so I doubt he made
it up.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Only two things in life are infinite; the Universe, and human
stupidity (and I'm not so sure about the Universe)."
-- Dr. Albert Einstein

[John Baker]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 19:21:10 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav

Cheer up. There's nothing to Gain from a negative attitude.

[sbalneav]

Seems like Fab advice. Time for your raise your Arm & Hammer the point home.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
<atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"

>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Many of you claim the bible
>> >
>> >snip
>> >

>> >“It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
>> >history, and pizza.”
>> >-Penn Jillette
>>
>> Why do the morons imagine we "claim" anything about the Bible?
>
>
>Here is part of a post by Free Lunch:
>
> No one actually gets their morality from the Bible, despite
>the false claims of some believers that the Bible is the foundation of
>morality.

>>
>> (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
>> not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)
>

>The Tanakh includes the Torah, ignoramus. The Torah is the first 5 books
>of the Tanakh. You're lying again.I spoke at length to Yap on both the Torah
>and the Tanakh which includes the Torah when he asked me questions on
>those books.I mention those books when I consider them to be relevant,
>not to amuse your worthless, ignorant, lying ass.

And the Torah and Tanakh are not the foundations of morality. They are
writings that came after other moral teachings were written. The Bible
is not a source of morality.

>I made this challenge before and I'll make it again-ask me questions on
>Torah,Talmud, Tanakh or any other part of Judaism and then we'll see
>what my religious background is. You're afraid to do that, aren't you?
>You're a chickenshit COWARD with the IQ of a carrot and the morals of a cockroach.

Whatever. The Bible is still error-filled scriptures written by priests
for their own purposes.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Partial piggyback...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 17:41:10 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Thu, 3 May 2012 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
><atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On May 2, 5:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Many of you claim the bible
>>> >
>>> >snip
>>> >
>>> >“It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact,
>>> >history, and pizza.”
>>> >-Penn Jillette
>>>
>>> Why do the morons imagine we "claim" anything about the Bible?
>>
>>
>>Here is part of a post by Free Lunch:
>>
>> No one actually gets their morality from the Bible, despite
>>the false claims of some believers that the Bible is the foundation of
>>morality.

Which is a fact.

An observation.

Everybody gets it from how their parents raise them.

>>> (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
>>> not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)
>>
>>The Tanakh includes the Torah, ignoramus. The Torah is the first 5 books
>>of the Tanakh. You're lying again.I spoke at length to Yap on both the Torah
>>and the Tanakh which includes the Torah when he asked me questions on
>>those books.I mention those books when I consider them to be relevant,
>>not to amuse your worthless, ignorant, lying ass.

The lying piece of shit was talking about the Christian Bible, not the
Jewish Tanakh or the Jewish Torah.

And using that to lie about us, to us, at the same time showing his
dishonesty and stupidity.

If he seriously imagines the ten commandments are "If that ain't
morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II" then were is the morality in telling
us to have no god other than his pretend friend? To honour the sabbath
from somebody else's religion, etc?

>And the Torah and Tanakh are not the foundations of morality. They are
>writings that came after other moral teachings were written. The Bible
>is not a source of morality.

Obviously not.

Otherwise believers line Bruno/Tandy/Murdoch would actually show some
morality themselves.

They don't realise just what their own appalling behaviour says about
both them and their alleged source of morality.

>>I made this challenge before and I'll make it again-ask me questions on
>>Torah,Talmud, Tanakh or any other part of Judaism and then we'll see
>>what my religious background is. You're afraid to do that, aren't you?
>>You're a chickenshit COWARD with the IQ of a carrot and the morals of a cockroach.

And Bruno/Tandy/Murdoch is still a pathological narcissist who can't
stop lying about others to their faces.

Religion brings it out.

We wouldn't give a flying fuck about something as irrelevant as the
Bible, the Tanakh or the Torah if these psychotics kept their bullshit
to themselves.

And because they're narcissists they can't understand why we use
language like that and act offended.

It's part and parcel of his being a fundamentalist Christian "Jew for
Jesus" pretending to be the Jew he used to be.

However Bruno/Tandy/Murdoch referred us to the Biblenot the Tanakh
or the Torah.

He bullshits us using Christian presumptions he knows atheists don't
grant, and then when we respond he says "Jews don't believe that".

But then he is a pathological narcissist who can't stop lying - and he
has the sheer hypocrisy to accuse us of his own failings..

>Whatever. The Bible is still error-filled scriptures written by priests
>for their own purposes.

And it takes a freaking moron to imagine it means anything to
non-Christians.

[duke]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:02:54 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:45:46 -0500
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:59:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>> <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> > Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>> >
>> > It doesn't.
>> >
>> >> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
>> >> in the Book of Exodus:
>> >>
>> >> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>> >>
>> >> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>> >
>> > Question: If I commit EVERY ONE of those sins, every single one,
>> > and then truly repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my one
>> > true Lord and Saviour, will I go to Hell for eternity?
>>
>> Not if you truly repent and ask God for forgiveness. Of course, a
>> few humans will still be looking for your scalp.
>[snip - quoted text without a response]

>Shouldn't God be protecting those who repent from these scalpers? If
>not, then what are the actual real-world membership benefits?

Nope, God leaves us to our own evil failures. If he was looking for perfection
in us, we would never die. As it stands now, our life on this earth is the time
to declare ourselves - God or satan.

[duke]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 19:25:47 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:59:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
>>>> in the Book of Exodus:
>>>>
>>>> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>>>>
>>>> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>>>
>>>Question: If I commit EVERY ONE of those sins, every single one, and then
>>>truly repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my one true Lord and
>>>Saviour, will I go to Hell for eternity?
>>
>> Not if you truly repent and ask God for forgiveness. Of course, a few humans
>> will still be looking for your scalp.
>
>So then there's no moral teaching, right? I can sin as much as I want, so long
>as I repent afterwards.

If you truly repent afterwards - yes. However you may die first without
repentance, and that makes satan smile. However, God can forgive while man
won't. And hence the "scalp" comment.

>Humans seem to be much more the hardasses than God. With God, all I gotta do
>is feel sorry. Humans don't care how sorry I am, I'll still have to serve jail
>time.

Ahhhhhhh, how right you are.

>But what's a few years in a cell when my eternal existence is secure?

Or a rope.

> Too bad
>the hindu I raped and murdered gets to go to hell for eternity. Oh, well, they
>should have repented while they had the chance, like I did.

Maybe they did.

[HVAC]

On 5/4/2012 12:51 PM, duke wrote:
>
>
> Nope, God leaves us to our own evil failures. If he was looking for perfection
> in us, we would never die. As it stands now, our life on this earth is the time
> to declare ourselves - God or satan.

How can this possibly be considered a 'choice' or free will?

One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.


Where is the choice?












--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:

> One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
> On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.

Both are broken promises. You get nothing, and the clock runs out to
infinity.

[Warhol]

Op 4-5-2012 23:24, HVAC schreef:

> On 5/4/2012 12:51 PM, duke wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nope, God leaves us to our own evil failures. If he was looking for
>> perfection
>> in us, we would never die. As it stands now, our life on this earth is
>> the time
>> to declare ourselves - God or satan.
>
>
> How can this possibly be considered a 'choice' or free will?
>
> One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
> On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.
>
>
> Where is the choice?
>
>

And what do you chose???


All you got to do is surrender...

[HVAC]

I can live with that ;-)

[HVAC]

On 5/4/2012 5:54 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
>> How can this possibly be considered a 'choice' or free will?
>>
>> One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
>> On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.
>>
>>
>> Where is the choice?
>>
>>
>
>
> And what do you chose???
>
>
> All you got to do is surrender...

Ya. I've explained that to you before.
Surrender is a non-starter for me.

[Yap]

On May 3, 7:09 pm, Waldo Tunnel <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 3, 2:58 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote
>

> [...]

>
> > > (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
> > > not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)
>

> > LEE IS LYING AGAIN.Here is a previous post I made:
>
> Let me explain it to you. Lee is an elderly, irrational atheist. He is
> self important and pompous which means he can never admit to being
> wrong. He prefers not to be held to the same standards he rigorously
> holds others to. The end result is that he is a disgrace to atheists
> everywhere and guess what?  He doesn't care that he is.

Why?
You must have been offended by his frank opinion or being scolded for
silliness ?

[Yap]

On May 4, 1:43 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:28:50 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:06:38 -0700, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> >> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>
> >> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear in the Book
> >> of Exodus:
>
> >>http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> >> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>
> >> You fuckers make so many statements out of pure ignorance that you often
> >> remind me of the racists I meet on Stormfront.
>
> >It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is not the original source
> >of morality, and that much of what it teaches is grossly immoral.
>
> Actually you're very wrong.  What the bible, especially the OT, shows is the
> evil ways of man and God's call for man to overcome them.

Why did your stupid pixie/god create human full of evil ways?
You want the cake and eat it too?

[Yap]

It is the weak human who surrender themselves.
We, unlike you, are strong human, earning our lives with our own
efforts.

And we have nothing to do with any psycho pixie.

[sbalneav]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 19:25:47 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:59:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
>>>>> in the Book of Exodus:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
>>>>
>>>>Question: If I commit EVERY ONE of those sins, every single one, and then
>>>>truly repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my one true Lord and
>>>>Saviour, will I go to Hell for eternity?
>>>
>>> Not if you truly repent and ask God for forgiveness. Of course, a few humans
>>> will still be looking for your scalp.
>>
>>So then there's no moral teaching, right? I can sin as much as I want, so long
>>as I repent afterwards.
>
> If you truly repent afterwards - yes.

So, in your opinion, what morality is taught in the bible? The only
unforgivable sin is doubt.

> However you may die first without
> repentance,

You can be repentent with your last breath.

> and that makes satan smile.

As I've told you before; non-existant things don't smile.

> However, God can forgive while man
> won't. And hence the "scalp" comment.

Lots of men forgive. I forgive all the time.

>>Humans seem to be much more the hardasses than God. With God, all I gotta do
>>is feel sorry. Humans don't care how sorry I am, I'll still have to serve jail
>>time.
>
> Ahhhhhhh, how right you are.

Nice to see you're finally admitting it. It's a good thing there's human
justice; otherwise there'd be no justice at all.

>>But what's a few years in a cell when my eternal existence is secure?
>
> Or a rope.

According to your sycophantic religion, I shouldn't even be afraid of that.
I believe there's a Chick tract that deals with this directly, but then again,
Chick doen't think too much of you Catholics.

>> Too bad
>>the hindu I raped and murdered gets to go to hell for eternity. Oh, well, they
>>should have repented while they had the chance, like I did.
>
> Maybe they did.

Why would a devout Hindu repent to YHWH?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 5:54 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Op 4-5-2012 23:24, HVAC schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 5/4/2012 12:51 PM, duke wrote:
>>
>> >> Nope, God leaves us to our own evil failures. If he was looking for
>> >> perfection
>> >> in us, we would never die. As it stands now, our life on this earth is
>> >> the time
>> >> to declare ourselves - God or satan.
>>
>> > How can this possibly be considered a 'choice' or free will?
>>
>> > One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
>> > On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.
>>
>> > Where is the choice?
>>
>> And what do you chose???
>>
>> All you got to do is surrender.
>
> It is the weak human who surrender themselves.

Like Hitch said in that one discussion:

"You've only got a few days left, but you don't have to live them as a slave,
you know."

[Double-A]

On May 4, 2:24 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 12:51 PM, duke wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nope, God leaves us to our own evil failures.  If he was looking for perfection
> > in us, we would never die.  As it stands now, our life on this earth is the time
> > to declare ourselves - God or satan.
>
> How can this possibly be considered a 'choice' or free will?
>
> One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
> On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.
>
> Where is the choice?

Yet I'll bet you haven't made the predictable choice, have you?

Double-A

[Waldo Tunnel]

On May 2, 2:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
>

> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> in the Book of Exodus:
>
> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
>
> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.

I love your dress, your majesty!

No, it ain't morality. Keep the Sabbath? No graven images? No other
"gods?

Don't be an entire idiot.

[Waldo Tunnel]

Why doesn't he care? Because protecting his ego is paramount in his
mind. Paramount in *my* mind is his lousy example of an atheist.

> You must have been offended by his frank opinion

Huh? *I* must have? Why is that? Because you can't conceive of an
alternative?

Look. I can prove my point. C. Lee can't. Ask me to. I dare ya.

> or being scolded for silliness ?

Look. C. Lee's conclusions about theism/atheism are, for the most
part, spot-on (in my opinion). However, he is also intellectually
dishonest.

That's the problem.

[Smiler]

Does he have your permission to be partly an idiot?

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 18:56:27 -0400
HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 5:41 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> > HVAC wrote:
> >
> >> One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
> >> On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.
> >
> > Both are broken promises. You get nothing, and the clock runs out to
> > infinity.
>
> I can live with that ;-)

...as long as the virgins don't run out on you?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"If the moon was made of Green cheese, [then] Mars has canals with wine
running in them."
-- Les Hellawell

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 23:10:14 +0100
Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 00:01:32 -0700, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> > On May 2, 2:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
> >>
> >> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> >> in the Book of Exodus:
> >>
> >> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
> >>
> >> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
> >
> > I love your dress, your majesty!
> >
> > No, it ain't morality. Keep the Sabbath? No graven images? No other
> > "gods?
> >
> > Don't be an entire idiot.
>
> Does he have your permission to be partly an idiot?

Ha ha! One never needs permission to be any idiot of any quality.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"It's not religion that makes idiots; it's idiots that join religions."
-- Barry O'Grady (March 5, 2012)

[HVAC]

On 5/6/2012 6:34 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> One one hand we are promised an eternity of joy.
>>>> On the other hand we are offered an eternity of torment and agony.
>>>
>>> Both are broken promises. You get nothing, and the clock runs out to
>>> infinity.
>>
>> I can live with that ;-)
>
> ...as long as the virgins don't run out on you?

The virgins ran out on me a LONG time age, my dear ;-)

[Brad Guth]

In everyday practice, what's the difference between a devout Atheist
and a devout Semite?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

A comparison isn't possible because there's no such thing as a "devout
atheist" since atheism, which is absent of belief in deities and
supernatural agents, isn't a religion.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."
-- Jim Morrison

[Brad Guth]

On May 6, 4:51 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

You didn't get the gist.

There is no difference between a Semite and the Atheist.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

> You didn't get the gist.

Actually, your question was invalid and I merely explained why.

> There is no difference between a Semite and the Atheist.

That's illogical because while a Semite speaks certain languages, baby
humans don't speak any Semetic Languages (these languages may be
learned later on in life).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I am told that a horseshoe will bring you good luck whether you
believe in it or not."
-- Neils Bohr

[Yap]

On May 6, 3:19 pm, Waldo Tunnel <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 4:17 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 7:09 pm, Waldo Tunnel <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 3, 2:58 am, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > > (Note that being a Christian who pretends he's still a Jew, Bruno does
> > > > > not talk about the Torah, the Tanakh etc)
>
> > > > LEE IS LYING AGAIN.Here is a previous post I made:
>
> > > Let me explain it to you. Lee is an elderly, irrational atheist. He is
> > > self important and pompous which means he can never admit to being
> > > wrong. He prefers not to be held to the same standards he rigorously
> > > holds others to. The end result is that he is a disgrace to atheists
> > > everywhere and guess what?  He doesn't care that he is.
>
> > Why?
>
> Why doesn't he care? Because protecting his ego is paramount in his
> mind. Paramount in *my* mind is his lousy example of an atheist.

If a person has no little ego to go by his character, then he ain't a
human.
From your reply, you do possess some ego too.

But I only find him paramount in clobbering the theists here with
straight forceful opinion.
I also feel good with his scolding of the theists who hold their
ground shamelessly.

>
> > You must have been offended by his frank opinion
>
> Huh? *I* must have? Why is that? Because you can't conceive of an
> alternative?

Well, you can always offer an alternative to his reply and people here
would know the different tactic.
Is it so hard to do it?

>
> Look. I can prove my point. C. Lee can't. Ask me to. I dare ya.

I would not like to challenge, since I may not agree to your point.

>
> > or being scolded for silliness ?
>
> Look. C. Lee's conclusions about theism/atheism are, for the most
> part, spot-on (in my opinion). However, he is also intellectually
> dishonest.

If his opinions are spot on and agreeable by you, what is your
complain?

Your last sentence is libeling...could you illustrate?

>
> That's the problem.

The real problem is, a losing warring party has an issue with internal
unity.
North Vietnamese and Vietcong were highly united forces that took out
a superpower. Had even some members of the communist members hesitated
in their action, US would have wiped them off.

[Painius]

I'll have to go with Brad on this one, Fiddy. Babies are not
atheists, as you appear to be saying. Babies are much like me, that
is, they do not know either way. They have not been given the
choices... to believe or to disbelieve. Babies are neither theist,
nor atheist, nor agnostic. Just like me. The only diff is that I
*have* been given the choices. And now I choose to neither believe
nor disbelieve.

There is no official name for what babies and I are. You choose to
see me as an agnostic? You're wrong. Agnostics either believe or
disbelieve, and I do neither. We humans do not yet have what it takes
to be able to discern whether or not there is a deity. So we either
accept and believe in a deity based upon faith and faith alone (the
vast majority), or we do not believe also based upon faith and faith
alone. The third choice is my option, which is to neither believe nor
disbelieve. This choice is the only proper one, since there is no
evidence either way.

Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.

Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.

Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon faith
and faith alone.

If one says, "I disbelieve in deities because there is no evidence,"
upon what is he basing his disbelief? He bases his disbelieve on the
fact that theists cannot produce evidence for their position. So both
theists and atheists base their belief or disbelief on a lack of
evidence, rather than the presence of good hard evidence. Is this not
the heart of the definition of faith? Yes, it is.

Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that both theists and atheists
are blind sheep who follow a faith and trust that they are correct.

Agnostics are little better, for although agnostics do recognize that
they may be wrong, they still either believe or disbelieve in a deity
or deities. They are either theistic agnostics or atheistic
agnostics. Agnostics are sheep with one eye slightly open.

One must go deeper for the truth. One must go beyond faith and trust
in the lack of evidence. One must realize that we human beings are
not yet capable of discerning whether or not a deity or deities exist.
We must take the only stand possible, and that is to acknowledge that
we do not have evidence nor knowledge either way. We can neither
believe nor disbelieve in a deity or deities. We must accept that we
do not know, that we cannot possibly know.

There is no "official" word or name for us, although I'm sure someone
will come up with one soon.

Did I just leave myself open for a Harlow comeback? <<< g >>>

Harlow would probably just say that this same logic applies to pixies,
to fairies, to Bigfoot, to UFOs, and to the Loch Ness monster. These
are more easily disbelieved because there is so much evidence that has
been faked. Where is the faked evidence for or against a deity or
deities? Human beings have the ability to discern whether or not
things like "Nessie" or Bigfoot exist. We do not have the ability,
yet, to discern whether or not a deity or deities exist. Perhaps we
will someday, but not yet. Not yet.

Happy days *and*...
Starry starry nights !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
Don't fool yourself - you are the easiest one to fool.

[HVAC]

On 5/7/2012 9:42 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
>
> Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.
>
> Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon faith
> and faith alone.

As predicted, Painus has recharged his kook-batteries and
has returned for round two.

Fidem beat him like a rented mule in the first go-round.
Let's see how THIS one goes.

[HVAC]

On 5/7/2012 9:42 AM, Painius wrote:
>

> Did I just leave myself open for a Harlow comeback?<<< g>>>
>
> Harlow would probably just say that this same logic applies to pixies,
> to fairies, to Bigfoot, to UFOs, and to the Loch Ness monster.

Of COURSE I'd say that....I've said it before. Did you forget?

> are more easily disbelieved because there is so much evidence that has
> been faked. Where is the faked evidence for or against a deity or
> deities?

LOL! You're kidding, right?

Let's start with the face of Jesus on a piece of french toast.

> Human beings have the ability to discern whether or not
> things like "Nessie" or Bigfoot exist. We do not have the ability,
> yet, to discern whether or not a deity or deities exist. Perhaps we
> will someday, but not yet. Not yet.

SSDD

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:17:21 -0400
HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/7/2012 9:42 AM, Painius wrote:
> >
> > Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
> >
> > Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.
> >
> > Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon
> > faith and faith alone.
>
> As predicted, Painus has recharged his kook-batteries and
> has returned for round two.
>
> Fidem beat him like a rented mule in the first go-round.
> Let's see how THIS one goes.

I'm thinking of letting a hamster handle the next round (and I expect
the outcome to be the same).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"... Imagine there's no countries ... And no religion too ..."
-- John Lennon ("Imagine")

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-05-07, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
>
> Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.
>
> Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon faith
> and faith alone.

> [...]

The burden of proof is on the theists making the claims. And
exceptional claims (like a God) require exceptional evidence.

There is none.

Atheist is the natural position.

--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder

[Brad Guth]

On May 7, 12:13 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

You keep missing the gist, but then most faith-based types do just
that because they don't want the same interpretations ever applied to
themselves.

It's the actions of the young K12s, middle age and old adults that
matters, and not whatever their words have to say or imply.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Joe Bruno]

On Sunday, May 6, 2012 3:35:50 PM UTC-7, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 23:10:14 +0100
> Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 May 2012 00:01:32 -0700, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> > > On May 2, 2:06 pm, Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Many of you claim the bible does not teach morality.
> > >>
> > >> Here are 3 versions of the Ten Commandments.They first appear
> > >> in the Book of Exodus:
> > >>
> > >> http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/index.html
> > >>
> > >> If that ain't morality,I'm Queen Elizabeth II.
> > >
> > > I love your dress, your majesty!
> > >
> > > No, it ain't morality. Keep the Sabbath? No graven images? No other
> > > "gods?
> > >
> > > Don't be an entire idiot.
> >
> > Does he have your permission to be partly an idiot?
>
> Ha ha! One never needs permission to be any idiot of any quality.
>
> --

Yes. You are free to be yourself.

[HVAC]

On 5/7/2012 1:17 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> You keep missing the gist, but then most faith-based types do just
> that because they don't want the same interpretations ever applied to
> themselves.
>
> It's the actions of the young K12s, middle age and old adults that
> matters, and not whatever their words have to say or imply.

If you're not familiar with Brad, Fidem, he is almost as anti Semetic
as Warhole. He also believes there are moon men running around on planet
Venus. One would naturally assume moon women as well.




That reminds me...I haven't seen Amazon Women On The Moon in a while.

[Brad Guth]

On May 7, 10:09 am, Mike Lovell <mike.lov...@null.local> wrote:

Except when Atheists get to act/react exactly like Semites, and
Semites get to act/react like Atheists, there's hardly if any
difference between them.

A faith-based mafia or private social ethnicity cabal of insiders
might be an honest interpretation for each of them, because their self-
serving and damage-control actions are pretty much identical, other
than Semites having many social/political perks and benefits that
Atheists don't.

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-05-07, Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Yes. You are free to be yourself.

I think everyone has the right to be stupid but Joe, you abuse the
privilege.

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-05-07, Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Except when Atheists get to act/react exactly like Semites, and
> Semites get to act/react like Atheists, there's hardly if any
> difference between them.

Their reactions are irrelevant.

An aggressive reaction by an atheist to a theist trolling alt.atheism is
understandable.

How would you feel if I came into your house, told you it was crap and
then took a dump on your carpet?

> A faith-based mafia or private social ethnicity cabal of insiders
> might be an honest interpretation for each of them, because their self-
> serving and damage-control actions are pretty much identical, other
> than Semites having many social/political perks and benefits that
> Atheists don't.

Not really, one is based on an unproved assertion. The other is based
on not accepting that unproved assertion.

The burden is not on us.

And we are of course posting in alt.atheism right now.

[Painius]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:09:27 -0500, Mike Lovell
<mike....@null.local> wrote:

>On 2012-05-07, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
>>
>> Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.
>>
>> Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon faith
>> and faith alone.
>> [...]
>
>The burden of proof is on the theists making the claims. And
>exceptional claims (like a God) require exceptional evidence.
>
>There is none.
>
>Atheist is the natural position.

Yes, Mike, this is the usual rationale of the atheist. It is the
rationale of those who choose to disbelieve in a deity or deities
based primarily upon the fact that theists are completely unable to
produce the exceptional evidence that would serve as the proof, or
more precisely, that would satisfy the burden of proof.

The flaw here is that this is where atheists stop. They feel that
nothing else is required. As long as theists cannot produce that
exceptional evidence, the position of atheists is sound. Wrong.
Incorrect. And if this is how you see the situation, then there is
probably little that can be said to change your mind.

I stand firmly on what I wrote above. The burden of proof lies with
all who make the exceptional claims. Theists make the exceptional
claim that a deity (or deities) exists. Atheists make the exceptional
claim that a deity (or deities) does not exist. That's the part that
atheists just don't seem to get. Both positions, theism and atheism
are based upon a foundation of sand. Both positions can be held based
*only* upon faith and faith alone.

Is it so terrible for you to disbelieve? Of course not, if that is
your choice. It is no more terrible to disbelieve than it is for
theists to believe. And no more correct. In the quest to figure this
out there is only where the evidence leads us. Thus far, the evidence
leads nowhere, so we as human beings are unable to discern whether or
not a deity (or deities) exist. To believe or to disbelieve, whether
theistic, atheistic or agnostic, is to follow your heart - not the
evidence.

Happy days *and*...
Starry starry nights !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Don't fool yourself - you are the easiest one you can fool.

[Painius]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:17:21 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/7/2012 9:42 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
>>
>> Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.
>>
>> Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon faith
>> and faith alone.
>
>
>
>As predicted, Painus has recharged his kook-batteries and
>has returned for round two.
>
>Fidem beat him like a rented mule in the first go-round.
>Let's see how THIS one goes.

Only you would see this as such an absurdity as "round two".

There are no rounds, Harlow, there is only truth - reality - and our
mutual quest to discover it.

You feel that the reality here is that there definitely is no deity
nor deities. But you can back that up only by asserting that theists
cannot produce evidence for their claims. When *you* are asked if
there is any *other* reason you disbelieve, what would you say?

Happy days *and*...
Starry starry nights !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Don't fool yourself - you are the easiest one you can fool.

[Painius]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 10:00:22 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:17:21 -0400
>HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2012 9:42 AM, Painius wrote:
>> >
>> > Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
>> >
>> > Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.
>> >
>> > Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon
>> > faith and faith alone.
>>
>> As predicted, Painus has recharged his kook-batteries and
>> has returned for round two.
>>
>> Fidem beat him like a rented mule in the first go-round.
>> Let's see how THIS one goes.
>
>I'm thinking of letting a hamster handle the next round (and I expect
>the outcome to be the same).

I understand. Maybe someday you will forgive me, for when I joked
with you before, we really didn't know each other well enough for me
to assume that you would take my comments as tongue-in-cheek.

I do look forward to the day when you open your eyes at least to the
fact that I truly meant you no harm whatsoever, and perhaps to the
fact that none of us have as yet been endowed with the capacity to
discern the presence or absence of a deity or deities.

Happy days *and*...
Starry starry nights !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Don't fool yourself - you are the easiest one you can fool.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Your premise is flawed because you are assuming that either atheism is
something that it isn't, or that babies are born with some knowledge
about deities.

To clarify, atheism, which is an "absence of belief in deities and
supernatural agents," is nothing more than a mere classification. All
people are born without belief in deities (which requires the conscious
conceptualization of said deities first), hence they are "absent of
belief" and are therefor classified as "atheist" as a very simple and
unrefutable matter of fact.

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheist.pl

There does come a point in a baby's life where they can begin to start
learning more beyond natural survival instincts that motivated a
constant search for food and comfort, such as the development of verbal
communication, and then after this goes on for some time is it possible
for the child to understand complex concepts such as values, rituals,
cause and effect, interacting (e.g., with toys and pets), deities, etc.

> Just like me. The only diff is that I *have* been given the
> choices. And now I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve.

Does that mean you're choosing to be "absent of belief in deities and
supernatural agents?" That's very different from stating that such a
determination [to believe or disbelieve] is not possible.

Note: Many atheists also make choices in addition to just having
choices presented to them.

> There is no official name for what babies and I are.

That's incorrect -- there are multiple official names such as Human,
Human Being, Tellurian, Homosapien, Person, Child (depending on your
age), Infant (once again, depending on your age), etc. One might also
use classes like Bipedal Anthropoid, Hominid, or possibly Humanistic.

With regard to the "atheist" classification, newborn babies are
automatically included due to their natural absence of belief in deities
and supernatural agents.

> You choose to see me as an agnostic? You're wrong. Agnostics either
> believe or disbelieve, and I do neither. We humans do not yet have
> what it takes to be able to discern whether or not there is a deity.

Agnosticism is well-known for its contention that it's not possible to
prove nor disprove the existence of deities and supernatural agents,
and that's distinctly different from atheism because a certain minimal
knowledge set is required to understand what that means. One area
where atheism differs is that the absence of belief carries no minimal
required knowledge nor even the capacity to conceptualize anything.

> So we either accept and believe in a deity based upon faith and faith
> alone (the vast majority), or we do not believe also based upon faith
> and faith alone. The third choice is my option, which is to neither
> believe nor disbelieve. This choice is the only proper one, since
> there is no evidence either way.

You're attempting to justify a third option by depending on a
bifurcation fallacy, thus, "trifurcation fallacy" (to put it
neologistically) is perhaps the best identification of your logical
error.

In other words, your restriction to those three possibilities (believe,
oppose belief, or contend that neither option can be validated) ignores
other options, particularly the natural atheistic one which is naturally
classified as the "absence of belief in deities and supernatural
agents" (and certainly does so without any anti-theistic sentiments).

> Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
>
> Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no evidence.
>
> Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon faith
> and faith alone.

Your conclusion is illogical because the second part of your premise
incorrectly assumes that atheists are responsible for some burden of
proof -- because an absence of belief is not a claim or a faith, there
is nothing to prove, hence a burden of proof simply cannot apply.

> If one says, "I disbelieve in deities because there is no evidence,"
> upon what is he basing his disbelief? He bases his disbelieve on the
> fact that theists cannot produce evidence for their position. So both
> theists and atheists base their belief or disbelief on a lack of
> evidence, rather than the presence of good hard evidence. Is this not
> the heart of the definition of faith? Yes, it is.
> Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that both theists and atheists
> are blind sheep who follow a faith and trust that they are correct.

Your conclusion is illogical because the "disbelief" you cited is an
anti-theistic perspective -- it's not atheism because the anti-theistic
"opposition to belief" (which does carry a burden of proof) is very
different from the atheistic "absence of belief" (which does not carry
any burden of proof).

I also don't agree with your categorical assessment that they're all
like "blind sheep" because there are other reasons people may follow a
given religion which are not akin to this (e.g., coercion, mental
illness, medication, etc.).

> Agnostics are little better, for although agnostics do recognize that
> they may be wrong, they still either believe or disbelieve in a deity
> or deities. They are either theistic agnostics or atheistic
> agnostics. Agnostics are sheep with one eye slightly open.

Your premise is flawed because atheism isn't about being right or
wrong, it's merely an absence of belief. Granted, many atheists appear
to have a keen interest in scientific methdology, and consequently
often "objective truth," but that doesn't make us any better or worse
because atheism really is nothing more than a classification that also
lacks any idea of minimum or maximum intelligence requirements (thus
it can't really be compared).

Regarding the sub-classifications you used ("theistic agnostic" v.
"atheistic agnostic"), I don't really pay much attention to them
because I'm generally more focused on fundamental aspects, and regard
their introduction as a possible attempt at diversion on your part.

> One must go deeper for the truth. One must go beyond faith and trust
> in the lack of evidence. One must realize that we human beings are
> not yet capable of discerning whether or not a deity or deities exist.
> We must take the only stand possible, and that is to acknowledge that
> we do not have evidence nor knowledge either way. We can neither
> believe nor disbelieve in a deity or deities. We must accept that we
> do not know, that we cannot possibly know.

That's a contention that agnosticism is generally known for. I don't
agree with your fallacious bifurcation that it must apply to everyone
(mostly obviously because there are other valid options), but you are
free to make your own personal choice about whether you wish to apply
those ideas to your own life.

> There is no "official" word or name for us, although I'm sure someone
> will come up with one soon.

We're all tellurians (including our pets) regardless of beliefs.

[snip - diversion predicting how someone else may respond]

> Happy days *and*...
> Starry starry nights !

"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars -- mere
globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and
feel them, but do I see less or more?"
-- Richard P. Feynman

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have
such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his
existence."
-- Bertrand Russell

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:58:52 -0400
Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012 10:00:22 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:17:21 -0400
> >HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2012 9:42 AM, Painius wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Theists cannot convince atheists because they have no evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Atheists cannot convince theists because they also have no
> >> > evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Both arguments are unconvincing because they are both based upon
> >> > faith and faith alone.
> >>
> >> As predicted, Painus has recharged his kook-batteries and
> >> has returned for round two.
> >>
> >> Fidem beat him like a rented mule in the first go-round.
> >> Let's see how THIS one goes.
> >
> >I'm thinking of letting a hamster handle the next round (and I expect
> >the outcome to be the same).
>
> I understand. Maybe someday you will forgive me, for when I joked
> with you before, we really didn't know each other well enough for me
> to assume that you would take my comments as tongue-in-cheek.

I'm sorry, I forgot the "Ha ha!" prefix on that response -- it was,
indeed, intended to be humourous.

> I do look forward to the day when you open your eyes at least to the
> fact that I truly meant you no harm whatsoever, and perhaps to the
> fact that none of us have as yet been endowed with the capacity to
> discern the presence or absence of a deity or deities.

The main problem with your arguments is that you've been confusing
atheism (absence of belief) with anti-theism (opposition to belief),
and I do believe that we can agree on many things if you correct this.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
intelligent are full of doubt."
-- Bertrand Russell