Re: What kind of God..?

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

On Jan 21, 1:41 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2012 1:36 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21-January-2012 7:28 PM, DanielSan wrote:
>
> >> On 1/20/2012 11:25 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >>> On 21-January-2012 6:10 PM, Olrik wrote:
>
> >>>> Le 2012-01-21 02:01, felix_unger a écrit :
> >>>>> On 21-January-2012 5:56 PM, NEMO wrote:
>
> >>>>>> _ G O D _ the COck-sucking retard!
>
> >>>>> atheists themselves are one of the best arguments against atheism. are
> >>>>> there any happy atheists?
>
> >>>> I am.
>
> >>>> Besides, all atheists share is the lack of beliefs in some "god" or
> >>>> "gods".
>
> >>>> Anything else is up for grabs.
>
> >>>> You should know that by now, felix_unger.
>
> >>> nope. humans are not machines. our beliefs determine our behaviour,
>
> >> Yep.
>
> >>> and atheism is a belief
>
> >> Atheism is not a belief. Atheists themselves have wide and varying
> >> beliefs, however, just like those that don't collect stamps have wide
> >> and varying beliefs.
>
> > well you got one out of two right
>
> Nope.  Two out of two.   Atheism is no more a belief than not collecting
> stamps is a hobby.

Beautiful clarity! That's the best metaphor I've ever seen regarding
the definition of atheism. I'm going to be quoting you from time-to-
time on that one.

> Do you have a hobby of not collecting stamps, Felix?  Or a hobby of not
> collecting bottle caps or a hobby of not collecting old coins?

I do hope some passionate stamp collectors don't get upset with us now
-- we really don't intend to offend them.

> Do you typically train to not run a marathon?
>
> How about not driving a car, does that require a license?  How much
> training is involved in not cooking Beef Wellington?  And how much do
> the ingredients cost to not make Coq au vin?
>
> Do you need to read up on how to not invest in the stock market?

Great metaphors. I really enjoyed reading this.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Living in fear or judgement is not how I will spend my life --
realizing that this life is all I get and your life is all you get,
brings a need to make the best of all possible."
-- Michael Stanton

[felix_unger]

LOL! Daniel, you have fan!

>> Do you have a hobby of not collecting stamps, Felix? Or a hobby of not
>> collecting bottle caps or a hobby of not collecting old coins?
> I do hope some passionate stamp collectors don't get upset with us now
> -- we really don't intend to offend them.
>
>> Do you typically train to not run a marathon?
>>
>> How about not driving a car, does that require a license? How much
>> training is involved in not cooking Beef Wellington? And how much do
>> the ingredients cost to not make Coq au vin?
>>
>> Do you need to read up on how to not invest in the stock market?
> Great metaphors. I really enjoyed reading this.

Daniel just follows atheist 'scripts'. He doesn't think for himself.
when faced with arguments for which he hasn't a 'stock' answer he just
snips and runs away.

>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Living in fear or judgement is not how I will spend my life --
> realizing that this life is all I get and your life is all you get,
> brings a need to make the best of all possible."
> -- Michael Stanton

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”

"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"

"I regard the prime minister to be in breach of the written agreement she signed, leaving me no option but to honour my word and end my current relationship with her government. We should be able to trust our politicians to keep their word. Frankly a deal is a deal" - Andrew Wilkie, Federal Member for Denison

“All that's needed now is a small miracle to rid us of the worst prime minister and the worst government in Australia's history”

"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

Is it getting hot in here?

> >> Do you have a hobby of not collecting stamps, Felix?  Or a hobby of not
> >> collecting bottle caps or a hobby of not collecting old coins?
> > I do hope some passionate stamp collectors don't get upset with us now
> > -- we really don't intend to offend them.
>
> >> Do you typically train to not run a marathon?
>
> >> How about not driving a car, does that require a license?  How much
> >> training is involved in not cooking Beef Wellington?  And how much do
> >> the ingredients cost to not make Coq au vin?
>
> >> Do you need to read up on how to not invest in the stock market?
> > Great metaphors.  I really enjoyed reading this.
>
> Daniel just follows atheist 'scripts'. He doesn't think for himself.
> when faced with arguments for which he hasn't a 'stock' answer he just
> snips and runs away.

That has not been my observation. In fact, being an atheist flies
smack in the face of your ad hominem sentiments there.

[felix_unger]

don't give up your day job..!

>
>> Daniel just follows atheist 'scripts'. He doesn't think for himself.
>> when faced with arguments for which he hasn't a 'stock' answer he just
>> snips and runs away.
> That has not been my observation.

You need to be more observant then. check the exchanges between him and
fasgnadh in alt.atheism

> In fact, being an atheist flies
> smack in the face of your ad hominem sentiments there.
>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

[DanielSan]

That's nice.

How about actually responding to my post?

>
>>> Do you have a hobby of not collecting stamps, Felix? Or a hobby of not
>>> collecting bottle caps or a hobby of not collecting old coins?
>> I do hope some passionate stamp collectors don't get upset with us now
>> -- we really don't intend to offend them.
>>
>>> Do you typically train to not run a marathon?
>>>
>>> How about not driving a car, does that require a license? How much
>>> training is involved in not cooking Beef Wellington? And how much do
>>> the ingredients cost to not make Coq au vin?
>>>
>>> Do you need to read up on how to not invest in the stock market?
>> Great metaphors. I really enjoyed reading this.
>
> Daniel just follows atheist 'scripts'.

What script?

> He doesn't think for himself.

Projection detected.

> when faced with arguments for which he hasn't a 'stock' answer he just
> snips and runs away.

Like what?

[felix_unger]

didn't we both agree to disagree? we have discussed ad nauseam. there's
no point in rehashing because you don't address what is put to you. you
brand anything you don't agree with as lies, and the authors as liars,
and spruik the atheist mantra ad nauseaum until you come up against a
brick wall, which you then skirt around and try to direct the discussion
back to your stock lines, and we're back to square one. either that or
you wet your pants, and just cut and run like you did with fasgnadh. I'm
not getting on that merry-go-round with you again. so you can keep
trying, but it won't work.

>
>>
>>>> Do you have a hobby of not collecting stamps, Felix? Or a hobby of not
>>>> collecting bottle caps or a hobby of not collecting old coins?
>>> I do hope some passionate stamp collectors don't get upset with us now
>>> -- we really don't intend to offend them.
>>>
>>>> Do you typically train to not run a marathon?
>>>>
>>>> How about not driving a car, does that require a license? How much
>>>> training is involved in not cooking Beef Wellington? And how much do
>>>> the ingredients cost to not make Coq au vin?
>>>>
>>>> Do you need to read up on how to not invest in the stock market?
>>> Great metaphors. I really enjoyed reading this.
>>
>> Daniel just follows atheist 'scripts'.
>
> What script?
>
>> He doesn't think for himself.
>
> Projection detected.
>
>> when faced with arguments for which he hasn't a 'stock' answer he just
>> snips and runs away.
>
> Like what?

[DanielSan]

No. You lied and I told the truth.

> we have discussed ad nauseam.

You mean that you lied ad nauseam and I told the truth ad nauseam.

> there's
> no point in rehashing because you don't address what is put to you.

And there's another lie.

> you
> brand anything you don't agree with as lies, and the authors as liars,

What should I call falsehoods told with a deliberate intent to deceive?
Candy bars?

> and spruik the atheist mantra ad nauseaum until you come up against a
> brick wall,

Like what?

> which you then skirt around

For example?

> and try to direct the discussion
> back to your stock lines,

Why don't you provide examples of what I allegedly do?

> and we're back to square one. either that or
> you wet your pants, and just cut and run like you did with fasgnadh.

I didn't cut and run with fasgnadh. I couldn't make head or tails of
that mess.

> I'm
> not getting on that merry-go-round with you again. so you can keep
> trying, but it won't work.

Fine. You don't want to tell the truth, I can't make you.

[felix_unger]

short memory eh, Nappisan..

17/1/12

>> EOD. there's no point in discussing further. you're not going to change
>> your mind, and neither am I. unfortunately (for you) you can't see how
>> silly you appear to 'normal' ppl.
>
> I can't make you believe that the sun rises in the east no matter
what I say nor can I make you believe that atheism is the LACK OF THEISM.
>
> But, you're probably right. There really is no point in discussing
further. You're wrong and refuse to correct yourself (or even realize
that you ARE wrong).

you couldn't get your story straight if your life depended on it..

[DanielSan]

I really don't know what you're talking about. What leads you to
believe that?

[DanielSan]

I missed this portion.

I didn't agree to disagree. I agreed that you're wrong.

[felix_unger]

so you don't have the decency to admit you're wrong

[DanielSan]

I'm not wrong. Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of theism.
That's the definition of the term. If one calls it a belief, THEY ARE
WRONG. INCORRECT. IN ERROR.

Get it?

Words have very specific definitions dependent upon context. You
wouldn't call a member of Felis catus a dog, would you? Calling that
animal a dog would be WRONG. INCORRECT. IN ERROR.

Get it?

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

I don't exist, yet you think I have a day job?

> >> Daniel just follows atheist 'scripts'. He doesn't think for himself.
> >> when faced with arguments for which he hasn't a 'stock' answer he just
> >> snips and runs away.
> > That has not been my observation.
>
> You need to be more observant then. check the exchanges between him and
> fasgnadh in alt.atheism
>
> >   In fact, being an atheist flies
> > smack in the face of your ad hominem sentiments there.

There are way too many messages for it to be a reasonable expectation
that I check for evidence you claim is there. Plus you're the one
making the claim, so the burden is yours to provide the evidence.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Religion is the original war crime."
-- Michelle Malkin (2005)

[felix_unger]

oh.. my humble apologies. who's doing the typing btw?

>
>>>> Daniel just follows atheist 'scripts'. He doesn't think for himself.
>>>> when faced with arguments for which he hasn't a 'stock' answer he just
>>>> snips and runs away.
>>> That has not been my observation.
>> You need to be more observant then. check the exchanges between him and
>> fasgnadh in alt.atheism
>>
>>> In fact, being an atheist flies
>>> smack in the face of your ad hominem sentiments there.
> There are way too many messages for it to be a reasonable expectation
> that I check for evidence you claim is there. Plus you're the one
> making the claim, so the burden is yours to provide the evidence.

only if I want to convince you, and I don't.

>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Religion is the original war crime."
> -- Michelle Malkin (2005)

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

[snip]

Believing in me (a logical fallacy) could put you at risk of offending
your monotheistic god. Are you really sure you want to go down this
path?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Terrible."
-- Satan, on The Bible

[felix_unger]

If you're not interested in rational discussion, I shall bid you gooday.

>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Terrible."
> -- Satan, on The Bible

[John Baker]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:57:41 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>On 23-January-2012 4:23 AM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 1:46 am, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 22-January-2012 7:46 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 21, 5:48 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 22-January-2012 12:28 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 21, 3:46 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22-January-2012 5:44 AM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>>>>> Beautiful clarity! That's the best metaphor I've ever seen regarding
>>>>>>>> the definition of atheism. I'm going to be quoting you from time-to-
>>>>>>>> time on that one.
>>>>>>> LOL! Daniel, you have fan!
>>>>>> Is it getting hot in here?
>>>>> don't give up your day job..!
>>>> I don't exist, yet you think I have a day job?
>>> oh.. my humble apologies. who's doing the typing btw?
>> [snip]
>>
>> Believing in me (a logical fallacy) could put you at risk of offending
>> your monotheistic god. Are you really sure you want to go down this
>> path?
>
>If you're not interested in rational discussion, I shall bid you gooday.

On the contrary, we're *very* interested in rational discussion. You
really must come and visit us again when you're capable of it.

[felix_unger]

with an invitation like that, I shall disrespectfully decline

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

In other words, you're incapable of rational discussion and have
chosen to run away.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"He is a man of courage who does not run away, but remains at his post
and fights against the enemy."
-- Socrates of Athens

[felix_unger]

No you stupid clueless twat! I'm ignoring (from now) on anyone who wants
to be insulting and confrontational- and that includes you!

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

You're obviously frustrated because simple logic keeps prevailing
against you pushing your corrupt moral views and passing judgment on
others. Are you really so naive that you think you will be able to
convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?

You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
got perspective by doing so. If you don't like that perspective,
that's life, but blaming atheists and stamp collectors for your
failure to convince skeptics that fallacy is fact won't prove to be
helpful.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Enjoy your slide down the razor blades of life!"
-- Unknown

[felix_unger]

only in your scrambled brain

> Are you really so naive that you think you will be able to
> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>
> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
> got perspective by doing so.

Oh yes, I certainly did! I gained further insight into the kind of
people atheists are

> If you don't like that perspective,
> that's life, but blaming atheists and stamp collectors for your
> failure to convince skeptics that fallacy is fact won't prove to be
> helpful.
>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Enjoy your slide down the razor blades of life!"
> -- Unknown

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction"

"Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at"

"I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to"

"Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let alone a great and enduring civilisation"

"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

You just passed judgment again, and with an ad hominem -- this is why
your claim of having a desire for rational discourse seems
contradictory.

> >    Are you really so naive that you think you will be able to
> > convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
> > alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>
> > You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
> > got perspective by doing so.
>
> Oh yes, I certainly did! I gained further insight into the kind of
> people atheists are

Whatever that insight leads you to conclude, do keep in mind that
attempts to apply one set of characteristics to an identifiable group
(e.g., people who share a particular philosophy) tend to be
unreliable, especially in the absence of significant and properly-
conducted peer-reviewed studies.

For example, despite the somewhat regular news reports in recent
decades that priests have been molesting children, there are
undoubtedly also many honourable priests who would never engage in
such nefarious activity. Unfortunately, the result is that all
priests become suspects in the eyes of an unforgiving public who
unwittingly rely on faulty journalistic "paint them all with the same
brush" types of conclusions.

> >   If you don't like that perspective,
> > that's life, but blaming atheists and stamp collectors for your
> > failure to convince skeptics that fallacy is fact won't prove to be
> > helpful.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to
persevere to the end in their nature and education."
-- Plato of Athens

[felix_unger]

I like to use colourful language. would you rather I had said.. "I
totally disagree with YOUR judgement". It's quite amusing how you
continually criticise me for what you do yourself.

> and with an ad hominem --

that is what I've been getting from atheists, including you, ever since
I've been posting here (in alt.agnosticism). you even criticise me for
responding to it, but never the perpetrator, which makes me wonder why
i'm even bothering to talk to you now

> this is why
> your claim of having a desire for rational discourse seems
> contradictory.

why don't you try it sometime and see for yourself

>
>>> Are you really so naive that you think you will be able to
>>> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
>>> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>>> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
>>> got perspective by doing so.
>> Oh yes, I certainly did! I gained further insight into the kind of
>> people atheists are
> Whatever that insight leads you to conclude, do keep in mind that
> attempts to apply one set of characteristics to an identifiable group
> (e.g., people who share a particular philosophy) tend to be
> unreliable, especially in the absence of significant and properly-
> conducted peer-reviewed studies.
>
> For example, despite the somewhat regular news reports in recent
> decades that priests have been molesting children,

and the RCC has been covering it up for centuries

> there are
> undoubtedly also many honourable priests who would never engage in
> such nefarious activity.

yes the majority

> Unfortunately, the result is that all
> priests become suspects in the eyes of an unforgiving public who
> unwittingly rely on faulty journalistic "paint them all with the same
> brush" types of conclusions.
>
>>> If you don't like that perspective,
>>> that's life, but blaming atheists and stamp collectors for your
>>> failure to convince skeptics that fallacy is fact won't prove to be
>>> helpful.
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to
> persevere to the end in their nature and education."
> -- Plato of Athens

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

I'd rather see "...I disagree with your premise because..." followed
by compelling logical arguments and/or supportive verifiable evidence,
which will undoubtedly be met with challenges given the stature of
some of the contributors around here.

Your claim that I continually criticize you is usually me presenting
logical arguments, but sometimes it's also an attempt at humour. It
may be rough sometimes, but this is usenet where people tend not to
hold back any punches -- if this is problematic for you, then
alt.atheism, in particular, probably isn't going to bring you much
satisfaction.

> >   and with an ad hominem --
>
> that is what I've been getting from atheists, including you, ever since
> I've been posting here (in alt.agnosticism). you even criticise me for
> responding to it, but never the perpetrator, which makes me wonder why
> i'm even bothering to talk to you now

I'm challenging you because you contributed to "alt.atheism." That's
what atheists do -- we question and poke and prod because many of us
are engaged in a never-ending pursuit of knowledge.

> > this is why
> > your claim of having a desire for rational discourse seems
> > contradictory.
>
> why don't you try it sometime and see for yourself

Oh, did this other attempt at humour using an ad hoc creative writing
style make me appear irrational? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4cad2f2eaa03e448

> >>>     Are you really so naive that you think you will be able to
> >>> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
> >>> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
> >>> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
> >>> got perspective by doing so.
> >> Oh yes, I certainly did! I gained further insight into the kind of
> >> people atheists are
> > Whatever that insight leads you to conclude, do keep in mind that
> > attempts to apply one set of characteristics to an identifiable group
> > (e.g., people who share a particular philosophy) tend to be
> > unreliable, especially in the absence of significant and properly-
> > conducted peer-reviewed studies.
>
> > For example, despite the somewhat regular news reports in recent
> > decades that priests have been molesting children,
>
> and the RCC has been covering it up for centuries

That wouldn't surprise me.

> >   there are
> > undoubtedly also many honourable priests who would never engage in
> > such nefarious activity.
>
> yes the majority

I don't agree with "majority" due to a lack of statistics to back that
up. "Many" is a reasonable assumption (used mainly to demonstrate a
point), but even that could be entirely incorrect.

> >   Unfortunately, the result is that all
> > priests become suspects in the eyes of an unforgiving public who
> > unwittingly rely on faulty journalistic "paint them all with the same
> > brush" types of conclusions.
>
> >>>    If you don't like that perspective,
> >>> that's life, but blaming atheists and stamp collectors for your
> >>> failure to convince skeptics that fallacy is fact won't prove to be
> >>> helpful.

Is your response missing, or did you intentionally end like this?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you
ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect
me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
-- Richard P. Feynman

[felix_unger]

>>>>>> No you stupid clueless twat! I'm ignoring (from now on) anyone who wants

>>>>>> to be insulting and confrontational- and that includes you!
>>>>> You're obviously frustrated because simple logic keeps prevailing
>>>>> against you pushing your corrupt moral views and passing judgment on
>>>>> others.
>>>> only in your scrambled brain
>>> You just passed judgment again,
>> I like to use colourful language. would you rather I had said.. "I
>> totally disagree with YOUR judgement". It's quite amusing how you
>> continually criticise me for what you do yourself.
> I'd rather see "...I disagree with your premise because..."

I'd rather see you naked. or, maybe not, depending on what I mite see..

> followed
> by compelling logical arguments and/or supportive verifiable evidence,
> which will undoubtedly be met with challenges given the stature of
> some of the contributors around here.

blah.. blah.. blah.. you take things far too seriously

>
> Your claim that I continually criticize you is usually me presenting
> logical arguments, but sometimes it's also an attempt at humour.

somewhat feeble attempt..

> It
> may be rough sometimes, but this is usenet where people tend not to
> hold back any punches -- if this is problematic for you, then
> alt.atheism, in particular, probably isn't going to bring you much
> satisfaction.
>
>>> and with an ad hominem --
>> that is what I've been getting from atheists, including you, ever since
>> I've been posting here (in alt.agnosticism). you even criticise me for
>> responding to it, but never the perpetrator, which makes me wonder why
>> i'm even bothering to talk to you now
> I'm challenging you because you contributed to "alt.atheism." That's
> what atheists do -- we question and poke and prod because many of us
> are engaged in a never-ending pursuit of knowledge.

you'd probably do better if you were less wacky and a little more..
well.. normal

>
>>> this is why
>>> your claim of having a desire for rational discourse seems
>>> contradictory.
>> why don't you try it sometime and see for yourself
> Oh, did this other attempt at humour using an ad hoc creative writing
> style make me appear irrational? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4cad2f2eaa03e448
>
>>>>> Are you really so naive that you think you will be able to
>>>>> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
>>>>> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>>>>> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
>>>>> got perspective by doing so.
>>>> Oh yes, I certainly did! I gained further insight into the kind of
>>>> people atheists are
>>> Whatever that insight leads you to conclude, do keep in mind that
>>> attempts to apply one set of characteristics to an identifiable group
>>> (e.g., people who share a particular philosophy) tend to be
>>> unreliable, especially in the absence of significant and properly-
>>> conducted peer-reviewed studies.
>>> For example, despite the somewhat regular news reports in recent
>>> decades that priests have been molesting children,
>> and the RCC has been covering it up for centuries
> That wouldn't surprise me.

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge these days

>
>>> there are
>>> undoubtedly also many honourable priests who would never engage in
>>> such nefarious activity.
>> yes the majority
> I don't agree with "majority" due to a lack of statistics to back that
> up. "Many" is a reasonable assumption (used mainly to demonstrate a
> point), but even that could be entirely incorrect.

you'd probably want evidence that you were too hot if you were being
boiled in oil!- and then want to debate it!
but seriously.. would you really contend that most priests are
paedophiles?? and if not isn't it then proper to say most and the
majority are not?

>
>>> Unfortunately, the result is that all
>>> priests become suspects in the eyes of an unforgiving public who
>>> unwittingly rely on faulty journalistic "paint them all with the same
>>> brush" types of conclusions.
>>>>> If you don't like that perspective,
>>>>> that's life, but blaming atheists and stamp collectors for your
>>>>> failure to convince skeptics that fallacy is fact won't prove to be
>>>>> helpful.
> Is your response missing, or did you intentionally end like this?

I guess I did. I obviously had nothing to say about your flawed perception.

>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you
> ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect
> me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
> -- Richard P. Feynman

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 23, 11:48 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"

Not only that, it's the very definition of "prejudice."

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[John Baker]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:40:23 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

Idiots like "felix" barge in uninvited posting thinly veiled insults
and ad homs, then whine about what terrible people we are when they
get the reaction they deliberately provoked.

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

I provided a serious answer (that seems to be what you were asking
for), and this is how you respond? And you wonder why people don't
take you seriously? You are your own worst enemy in this regard.

> > followed
> > by compelling logical arguments and/or supportive verifiable evidence,
> > which will undoubtedly be met with challenges given the stature of
> > some of the contributors around here.
>
> blah.. blah.. blah.. you take things far too seriously

Serious claims, like that your favourite deity is real, lead to
challenges for you to provide proof. Responding with statements like
"you take things far too seriously" or "the lord works in mysterious
ways" are attempts at misdirection to obscure the fact that you don't
have any credible evidence favouring your argument.

[snip - argumentative response]

> >    It
> > may be rough sometimes, but this is usenet where people tend not to
> > hold back any punches -- if this is problematic for you, then
> > alt.atheism, in particular, probably isn't going to bring you much
> > satisfaction.
>
> >>>    and with an ad hominem --
> >> that is what I've been getting from atheists, including you, ever since
> >> I've been posting here (in alt.agnosticism). you even criticise me for
> >> responding to it, but never the perpetrator, which makes me wonder why
> >> i'm even bothering to talk to you now
> > I'm challenging you because you contributed to "alt.atheism."  That's
> > what atheists do -- we question and poke and prod because many of us
> > are engaged in a never-ending pursuit of knowledge.
>
> you'd probably do better if you were less wacky and a little more..
> well.. normal

Better? In what way?

Nobody's normal.

You're argument is flawed because you're trying to manipulate context
to support a conclusion of irrationality.

> but seriously.. would you really contend that most priests are
> paedophiles?? and if not isn't it then proper to say most and the
> majority are not?

[snip - argumentative]

You're the one who made the claim that they are. My use of the word
"many" is purposely vague because I don't have statistical data
available to be more specific and make a "black and white" statement.

[felix_unger]

On 25-January-2012 7:19 AM, John Baker wrote:

> Idiots like "felix" barge in uninvited

Idiots like John Baker are too stupid to know that no invitation is
necessary to a public forum. there's no such thing as 'barging in'. I
could equally claim that YOU barged into alt.agnosticism - if I were as
stupid as you that is.

> posting thinly veiled insults
> and ad homs, then whine about what terrible people we are when they
> get the reaction they deliberately provoked.

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

On Jan 24, 4:19 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 25-January-2012 7:19 AM, John Baker wrote:
>
> > Idiots like "felix" barge in uninvited
>
> Idiots like John Baker are too stupid to know that no invitation is
> necessary to a public forum. there's no such thing as 'barging in'. I
> could equally claim that YOU barged into alt.agnosticism - if I were as
> stupid as you that is.

The problem with your argument is that the excessive use of ad
hominems excludes it from the realm of impartiality. This does not
help your argument.

> >   posting thinly veiled insults
> > and ad homs, then whine about what terrible people we are when they
> > get the reaction they deliberately provoked.
>
> "Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little
> else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their
> opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs
> because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that
> something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of
> Nihilism,

The "alt.atheism" newsgroup isn't unique to the endless posturing
(which seem to be posted mostly by right-wing-nuts). It's also not
unique to ad hominems (usenet is infamous for this), disagreements
(because it's globally accessible using localized technologies),
creativity (in writing style, formulating arguments, applying or mis-
applying logic, etc.), and people practicing various rituals (and
reporting the bloody details without concern for the fact that most
people really aren't interested).

The "lack of belief in deities and supernatural agents" (a.k.a.,
"atheism") is not an idea, rather it is an undeniable fact of nature
that every human is born with. However, your fallacious claim that
this idea is common among atheists is incorrect because the "lack of
belief in the existence of something" is not the same a "the belief
that something does or does not exist" -- this misunderstanding is
repeatedly mis-represented as fact along with many other fallacies
concerning deities, unicorns, conscious fetuses, telekinesis, magic
seer stones, talking bears, tin foil hats, etc., by an assortment of
right-wing-nuts and other delusional individuals who, for whatever
reason, appear to be seeking attention.

Your frustrations with "alt.atheism" actually stem from the fact that
logical counter-arguments tend to rip your claims to shreds. To you,
logic is like the stereotypically traditional strong-handed German
alpha-male who is strict and abundantly clear when giving direction
and demolishing facts. You don't like this because you are a slave to
your own ego, and this causes you to feel threatened (as evidenced by
your hostile reactions).

If all these responses are "impotent, ineffectual, and useless" then
why do you continue to respond? They obviously have an effect on you
because you keep responding with anger and frustration. Quite a few
folks have honoured you by giving you many opportunities to grow by
challenging you with logic or humour, but perhaps, intellectually,
"alt.atheism" is out of your league.

> not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let
> alone a great and enduring civilisation"

We also chat before dinner.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking.
There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked
solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

[felix_unger]

devoid of humour I see. and please look up 'banter' in the dictionary of
your choice

>
>>> followed
>>> by compelling logical arguments and/or supportive verifiable evidence,
>>> which will undoubtedly be met with challenges given the stature of
>>> some of the contributors around here.
>> blah.. blah.. blah.. you take things far too seriously
> Serious claims, like that your favourite deity is real, lead to
> challenges for you to provide proof. Responding with statements like
> "you take things far too seriously" or "the lord works in mysterious
> ways" are attempts at misdirection to obscure the fact that you don't
> have any credible evidence favouring your argument.

ah yes, dishonesty. why am I not surprised? I have never spoken of my
'favourite deity' or said 'the lord works in mysterious way' (at this
point I refer you to my sig file)

>
> [snip - argumentative response]
>>> It
>>> may be rough sometimes, but this is usenet where people tend not to
>>> hold back any punches -- if this is problematic for you, then
>>> alt.atheism, in particular, probably isn't going to bring you much
>>> satisfaction.
>>>>> and with an ad hominem --
>>>> that is what I've been getting from atheists, including you, ever since
>>>> I've been posting here (in alt.agnosticism). you even criticise me for
>>>> responding to it, but never the perpetrator, which makes me wonder why
>>>> i'm even bothering to talk to you now
>>> I'm challenging you because you contributed to "alt.atheism." That's
>>> what atheists do -- we question and poke and prod because many of us
>>> are engaged in a never-ending pursuit of knowledge.
>> you'd probably do better if you were less wacky and a little more..
>> well.. normal
> Better? In what way?
>
> Nobody's normal.

certainly not you!

cras amet qui nunquam amavit; quique amavit, cras amet

I shall bid you goodday. I have no interest in continuing with this.
it's purposeless and time consuming.

> , the non-existent atheist goddess
>
> "You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you
> ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect
> me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
> -- Richard P. Feynman

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction"

"Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at"

"I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to"

"Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see"

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:9o904n...@mid.individual.net...

And yet you keep posting to alt.atheism.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[John Baker]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:19:28 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>On 25-January-2012 7:19 AM, John Baker wrote:
>
>> Idiots like "felix" barge in uninvited
>
>Idiots like John Baker are too stupid to know that no invitation is
>necessary to a public forum. there's no such thing as 'barging in'. I
>could equally claim that YOU barged into alt.agnosticism

You could. But a.a didn't start the crossposting, so I doubt you'd get
much sympathy.

> - if I were as
>stupid as you that is.

You'd have to double your IQ and add ten to get halfway there, Sport.

>
>> posting thinly veiled insults
>> and ad homs, then whine about what terrible people we are when they
>> get the reaction they deliberately provoked.
>
>"Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little
>else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their
>opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs
>because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that
>something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of
>Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let
>alone a great and enduring civilisation"

Project much, Skippy?




>
>
>

[John Baker]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:11:36 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>>>>>>>> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
>>>>>>>> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>>>>>>>> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
>>>>>>>> got perspective by doing so.
>>>>>>> Oh yes, I certainly di
>

>cras amet qui nunquam amavit; quique amavit, cras amet
>
>I shall bid you goodday. I have no interest in continuing with this.
>it's purposeless and time consuming.

In other words, you've just been owned.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Spanky. We wouldn't
want you to suffer brain damage.

[felix_unger]

On 28-January-2012 3:46 AM, John Baker wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:11:36 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
>>>>>>>>> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>>>>>>>>> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you definitely
>>>>>>>>> got perspective by doing so.

>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I certainly did

>> cras amet qui nunquam amavit; quique amavit, cras amet
>>
>> I shall bid you goodday. I have no interest in continuing with this.
>> it's purposeless and time consuming.
> In other words, you've just been owned.
>
> Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Spanky. We wouldn't
> want you to suffer brain damage.
>

ah yes.. another hateful atheist who cannot tolerate honesty and truth.
why am I not surprised.

[DanielSan]

Sorry, but where was the honesty and truth? Looked like a bunch of lies
and distortions to me. Hypocrite.

> why am I not surprised.

Because you're not willing to speak with someone that disagrees with you
in a mature manner and have to rely on insults?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:44:04 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

When will you begin to present any honesty or truth? So far, you are
zero for both.

[felix_unger]

On 28-January-2012 9:45 AM, DanielSan wrote:

> On 1/27/2012 2:44 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 28-January-2012 3:46 AM, John Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:11:36 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> convince others in this manner, especially in a newsgroup like
>>>>>>>>>>> alt.atheism where skepticism reigns supreme?
>>>>>>>>>>> You are the one who chose to engage people here, and you
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> got perspective by doing so.
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I certainly did
>>>> cras amet qui nunquam amavit; quique amavit, cras amet
>>>>
>>>> I shall bid you goodday. I have no interest in continuing with this.
>>>> it's purposeless and time consuming.
>>> In other words, you've just been owned.
>>>
>>> Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Spanky. We wouldn't
>>> want you to suffer brain damage.
>>>
>>
>> ah yes.. another hateful atheist who cannot tolerate honesty and truth.
>
> Sorry, but where was the honesty and truth?

can't you read??.. "I shall bid you goodday. I have no interest in

continuing with this.
it's purposeless and time consuming".

> Looked like a bunch of lies and distortions to me. Hypocrite.
>
>> why am I not surprised.
>
> Because you're not willing to speak with someone that disagrees with
> you in a mature manner and have to rely on insults?

nonsense. John Wanker has proven that he offers nothing but personal
attacks.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”

“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”

“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”

“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”

The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

“Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let alone a great and enduring civilisation”

“Hypocrisy and irrationality are the only terms which can appropriately describe the atheist obsessions with critiquing others who don't share their non-belief “

“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”

[DanielSan]

Which you have do, too.

[DanielSan]

** Which you have done, too.

[felix_unger]

I offer opinion, facts, and arguments, and I have copped a lot of ad-hom
for my trouble from atheists, including you. I give what I get. If you
don't like what I have to say, don't talk to me.

[DanielSan]

No, you really haven't. Facts and arguments, that is.

> and I have copped a lot of ad-hom
> for my trouble from atheists, including you.

Actually, you have copped a lot of ad-hom, too.

> I give what I get.

Where did I do it to you first?

> If you
> don't like what I have to say, don't talk to me.

Feeling's mutual.

[felix_unger]

ok. starting now. you misrepresent and distort things. and to say I have
offered no facts or arguments in ALL that I have posted on these matters
here, is, to use one of your favourite words, lying!. and when I even
proved you wrong *by pure logic*, regarding your 'belief' you still
denied it. you say you're open minded but in all my exchanges with you,
you have shown otherwise- entirely unwilling to see any interpretations
but your own.

[DanielSan]

See what I mean? What am I supposed to call someone that tells
falsehoods with the intent to deceive?

Pretty sparkly pony moonbeam?

[felix_unger]

Daniel San

[DanielSan]

And which falsehoods have I told?

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

It probably doesn't matter -- his brain appears to be damaged beyond
repair.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

[ThomMadura]

Sorry = but it is felix unger who has posted in favor of the existence
of gods - that he has NEVER supported with proof that would establish
the clainm to be factual

THOSE that have posted against the claimed gods- are speaking from
knowledge - as I have pointed out. IT is impossible for a single being
to fulfill the claims religions have made for their gods - so the gods
of religion have to be fairy tales

[felix_unger]

You lie Doc. you've said this more than once too. quote me! and you
claim to be agnostic but you seem to be anti-god/religion. seems many
ppl here see what they want to see, but won't back up their claims.

>
> THOSE that have posted against the claimed gods- are speaking from
> knowledge - as I have pointed out. IT is impossible for a single being
> to fulfill the claims religions have made for their gods - so the gods
> of religion have to be fairy tales

“Snip, run and Lie ... the atheist Trinity”

Daniel San ran like a scared rabbit when fasgnadh confronted him with
logical arguments against his claims for atheism. he runs, dodges,
obfuscates, distorts, misrepresents, or straight out lies. I'll say it
again.. unless ppl here want to DISCUSS the issues, without attacks and
criticism (just look at what's said about me above in this post alone!),
then just don't talk to me. But I'm beginning to doubt if there is
anyone here willing to discuss honestly. when I have posed legitimate
questions to ppl directly, they disappear from the discussion. you all
seem to be just pushing your own barrow.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“We sensible agnostics laugh in your general direction”

“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”

“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”

“Atheists have tunnel vision. There's so much they don't see”

“Snip, run and Lie ... the atheist Trinity”

[DanielSan]

I'm an agnostic, too. And I am not anti-god/religion.

>> THOSE that have posted against the claimed gods- are speaking from
>> knowledge - as I have pointed out. IT is impossible for a single being
>> to fulfill the claims religions have made for their gods - so the gods
>> of religion have to be fairy tales
>
> “Snip, run and Lie ... the atheist Trinity”
>
> Daniel San ran like a scared rabbit when fasgnadh confronted him with
> logical arguments against his claims for atheism.

No, I really didn't.

> he runs, dodges,
> obfuscates, distorts, misrepresents, or straight out lies.

You can't point to a single piece of evidence for this claim, can you?

> I'll say it
> again.. unless ppl here want to DISCUSS the issues, without attacks and
> criticism (just look at what's said about me above in this post alone!),
> then just don't talk to me.

You came in attacking atheists with falsehoods and insisting that
atheists that were correcting you were lying.

> But I'm beginning to doubt if there is
> anyone here willing to discuss honestly. when I have posed legitimate
> questions to ppl directly, they disappear from the discussion. you all
> seem to be just pushing your own barrow.

Are you done with your lies?

[John Baker]

"felix" is a textbook example of why so many Usenet "agnostics" are so
bloody damned annoying. They ride into alt.atheism with guns blazing,
expecting to kick ass and take names, only to invariably have their
own asses handed to them in short order. In spite of that, they remain
so utterly convinced of the unassailable rightness of their own
position that even after they've been disabused of their
misconceptions regarding atheists and atheism, they still refuse to
deviate from the script. Rather than admit their error and allow that
the *true* atheist position is neither fallacious nor logically
indefensible, they continue to attack a strawman and then sit back and
smirk as though they've just presented the most devastatingly perfect
argument the world has ever seen when in fact all they've done is
showcase their own ignorance and dishonesty. They lie, insult and then
lie some more, then whine about how mean, nasty and arrogant atheists
are when we give them the spanking they deserve. They behave, in fact,
exactly like the fundamentalist Christian trolls we all know and
loathe.

There's no point in arguing with them, because they know what you
*really* believe better than you do. And they'll be the first ones to
tell you that. <G>

To be fair, I'll allow that the majority of the regulars in
alt.agnosticism are probably not like the ones we see here in a.a.
They likely don't troll other groups arrogantly attempting to impress
the regulars there with their largely imaginary intellectual
superiority, so we shouldn't judge them by felix's example.

Maybe they don't like him any more than we do. <G>

[felix_unger]

On 29-January-2012 2:22 PM, John Baker wrote:

> "felix" is a textbook example of why so many Usenet "agnostics" are so
> bloody damned annoying. They ride into alt.atheism with guns blazing,
> expecting to kick ass and take names, only to invariably have their
> own asses handed to them in short order. In spite of that, they remain
> so utterly convinced of the unassailable rightness of their own
> position that even after they've been disabused of their
> misconceptions regarding atheists and atheism, they still refuse to
> deviate from the script. Rather than admit their error and allow that
> the *true* atheist position is neither fallacious nor logically
> indefensible, they continue to attack a strawman and then sit back and
> smirk as though they've just presented the most devastatingly perfect
> argument the world has ever seen when in fact all they've done is
> showcase their own ignorance and dishonesty. They lie, insult and then
> lie some more, then whine about how mean, nasty and arrogant atheists
> are when we give them the spanking they deserve. They behave, in fact,
> exactly like the fundamentalist Christian trolls we all know and
> loathe.
>
> There's no point in arguing with them, because they know what you
> *really* believe better than you do. And they'll be the first ones to
> tell you that.<G>

no doubt you'll persist in your delusions such as these

> To be fair, I'll allow that the majority of the regulars in
> alt.agnosticism

such as?

> are probably not like the ones we see here in a.a.
> They likely don't troll other groups arrogantly attempting to impress
> the regulars there with their largely imaginary intellectual
> superiority, so we shouldn't judge them by felix's example.

maybe I shouldn't judge atheists by dishonest ones like you then. but
then I haven't encountered any honest ones yet who will debate with
integrity and without hostility or personal attacks.

now for the umpteenth time.. I have NOT posted ANY discussion threads to
alt.atheism. I have participated in existing threads, and answered
replies to me.

your claim of trolling is nothing but an invention of your warped
imagination.

> Maybe they don't like him any more than we do.<G>
>

Have a nice day!

[felix_unger]

point of clarification.. "I have participated in existing threads [in
alt.agnosticism], and answered replies to me [in alt.agnosticism from
alt.agnosticism].

[DanielSan]

Look. It's really simple. If you don't want replies from people
reading alt.atheism, STOP POSTING IN ALT.ATHEISM.