Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Eternal torment

2 views
Skip to first unread message

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 18, 2012, 7:59:38 PM12/18/12
to
niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:56:15 -0800 {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:03:29 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:12:18 -0800 Linuxgal wrote:
>>>
>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:23:14 -0800 Linuxgal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >niunian wrote:
>>>>>>> >>In that case, Kali has nothing to do with God, because God is
>>>>>>> >>life,
>>>>>>> >>not death.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >2 Kings 2:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >[23] And [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was
>>>>>> >going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the
>>>>>> >city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go
>>>>>> >up, thou bald head.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >[24] And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the
>>>>>> >name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the
>>>>>> >wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
>>>>
>>>>> By that description, you should know what kind of god this LORD is.
>>>>
>>>> Basically the Sandy Hook killer, deified.
>>>
>>>If that were true, it would be so much better.
>>
>> What?
>
>Yes.

Are you saying that you approve
of the slaughter of innocent children?

That is the kind of LORD you worship?

Andrew W

unread,
Dec 18, 2012, 9:17:31 PM12/18/12
to
<Silen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:al22d89tjmcnrt7i1...@6ax.com
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:37:36 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:14:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:09:20 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:02:30 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:38:11 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> God willed the universe into existence.
>>>>>>>>> Logic and reason cannot lead one to that conclusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Logic and reason is the only viable answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logic and reason can not provide any answers in a universe
>>>>>>> where an omnipotent being can suspend natural law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God started natural law. Why would he suspend it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why stop there, Dook?
>>>>> If natural law can be suspended, then there's no such thing as
>>>>> natural law, and -nothing- can be determined by logic and reason.
>>>>
>>>> God didn't suspend natural law. What makes you think he did?
>>>
>>> God is credited with acts which cannot have happened under well
>>> understood laws of physics.
>>
>> Well, truthfully, God created the laws of physics and so he can
>> suspend them if he wishes.
>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that God willed the universe into
>>>>>>>>> existence, nor any way logic and reason can lead one to that
>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>> Logic and reason is the only viable answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logic and reason can not provide any answers in a universe
>>>>>>> where an omnipotent being can suspend natural law.
>>>>>> Heeheehee.
>>>>> Why stop with moronic giggling, Dook?
>>>> You're stuck.
>>> Not at all, Dook.
>>
>> Yep, you're stuck.
>
> Nope.
>
>>
>>>>> If natural law can be suspended, then there's no such thing as
>>>>> natural law, and -nothing- can be determined by logic and reason.
>>>> Again, where did God stop natural law? You're sucking on
>>>> something real nasty.
>>
>>> When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still in
>>> the sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the fishes,
>>> as a few examples
>>
>> 1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a
>> regional flood.
>
> The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
> certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
> involved.
>
> And, as I noted before, in a universe where miracles can occur, one
> can't use logic and reason to know anything.
>
> That means that you can't use logic and reason to determine which
> parts of the Bible are true and which are not, as you tried to do.
>
>> 2. Everything got dark at 3pm. Maybe people thought is was another
>> day.
>
> Maybe?
>
> Maybe???
>
> In other words, you're -making shit up-, Dook.
>
>> 3. The Eucharist is spiritual nourishment which remains under the
>> visual, taste and texture of the substance of bread and wine.
>
> You're -making shit up- again, Dook.
>
> The above is not from the Bible.
>
>> 4. Maybe Jesus got the other people to offer up their own food
>> supplies.
>
> That's not what the Bible claims.
>
> The Bible claims that there was a -miracle- involved.
>
> Are you saying that the Bible, and this is New Testament now, is
> bullshit?
>
> It seems that even you know your holy book is nonsense, Dook.
>

It sure looks like he's been saying that.


--
Religions breed hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Many Christians spend more time looking down on other people than up
towards Christ.


Virgil

unread,
Dec 18, 2012, 10:54:39 PM12/18/12
to
In article <kapb90$vfb$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> In other word, you are saying "some" atheist reject theist beliefs simply
> because they are intolerant to theist beliefs.

The point is that when you find a salesman at your door, you have every
right to turn him away even before you have any idea what he is selling.

And when someone posts anti-atheist manifestos, like you do, to
alt.atheism, we have the same instant and inviolable right of absolute
rejection as we would have for any other troll's posts.
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 18, 2012, 11:02:34 PM12/18/12
to
In article <kapk1t$tf1$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:46:24 -0700 Virgil wrote:
>
> > In article <kan420$3d3$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The first grade class in logic says, you can only compare an apple with
> >> another apple, you can not compare an apple with an orange. In your
> >> case,
> >> you can only reject religious beliefs based on your secular belief, you
> >> can not reject religious beliefs based on your pretended ignorance.
> >
> > When presented with a claim. according to you one must either accept it
> > immediately or reject it immediately, one cannot withhold judgement on
> > it until one knows more about it and has enough opportunity to verify or
> > falsify what has been claimed.
> >
> > That is not how the world works.
> >
> > Nor how atheists work.
>
> That has nothing to do with atheists. That's agnostic.

You do not get to define my vocabulary. When I use a word, it means what
I intend it to mean, not what your ignorance lead you to think it should
mean. And dictionaries written by theists don't count!
>
> Still, even if you neither accept nor reject the theist claim, you still
> have your own belief as an agnostic.

As an agnostic I have no beliefs at all, at none least relevant to
whether any gods exist.

For you to claim otherwise is a form of arrogance, assumption of what
would be godly prerogative if there are any gods, that, again, if there
are any gods they will surely punish.
>
> >
> > If it is how you work, you must have bought a lot of gold bricks that
> > turned out to be mostly lead and failed to buy the real gold bricks.
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 18, 2012, 11:05:25 PM12/18/12
to
In article <kaphnh$i7e$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> > In what way can one apple be compared with another apple?
>
> In the way an atheist apple called atheism can be compared with a theist
> apple called theism. The theist apple has belief in the existence of God.
> The atheist apple lacks belief in the existence of God. Still, they are
> both apples.

Since apples are incapable of any sort of beliefs, all apples are
necessarily atheist apples. Which makes them, at least in that one
respect, better than humans.
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 12:37:15 AM12/19/12
to
In article <kaq4v6$m18$4...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:17:31 -0800 {:-]))) wrote:
>
> > niunian wrote:
> >> {:-]))) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Whatever it is you call what you're doing,
> >>> why are you doing what you are doing?
> >>
> >>I learn by sharing. That is my only agenda.
> >
> > At least you're having fun at the same time.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > I've not had this much fun for as long as I can remember.
> >
> > At least since yesterday.
> >
> > Well, that was about the same.
> >
> > But, for me, knowing the limits of any obsessions, impulse and
> > compulsive powers, and abilities,
> > how far they may go, far beyond those of most normal mortal folk,
> > it's been an eternity of sorts.
> >
> > Sorting thru innumerable posts.
> > Unable to read nor respond to them all.
> >
> > All in all, quite a ride.
> >
> > - in a bamboo grove
>
> Yea, I guess I have to limit the number of posts I make. I may have to
> focus better.

It will also keep you from lying so much.
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 12:40:17 AM12/19/12
to
In article <kaq7e8$n5u$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:01:33 -0800 {:-]))) wrote:
>
> > niunian wrote:
> >> Free Lunch wrote:
> >>
> >>> You have personally invented your god.
> >>
> >>Not true. I was found by God.
> >
> > How do you know this to be true?
> >
> > Aside from your own personal realization.
> > Aside from in your own personal spirit.
>
> It's my personal experience. It actually happened in my real life.
>
> >
> >> At the time, fresh out of university in
> >>Beijing, having read only about Karl Marx in my entire young life, I
> >>didn't even know what God is. The concept was entirely alien to me.
> >
> > To think God found you is a wonderful thought.
> >
> > Amazing.
> >
> > Practially incredible.
> >
> > As some would have it.
>
> Incredible indeed. One moment in the presence of God is worth a million
> times death in the suffering hell.

Since there is no more evidence of any hell than of any heaven for of
any gods, you are saying that zero is a million times larger than zero,
which even purely mathematically is false.
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 12:43:04 AM12/19/12
to
In article <kaq5d8$m18$5...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:56:04 -0800 Linuxgal wrote:
>
> > niunian wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:12:18 -0800 Linuxgal wrote:
> >>
> >>> >niunian wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >>> >[24] And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them
> >>>>>> >>> >in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears
> >>>>>> >>> >out of the wood,
> >>>>>> >>> >and tare forty and two children of them.
> >>>> >>By that description, you should know what kind of god this LORD is.
> >>> >
> >>> >Basically the Sandy Hook killer, deified.
> >> If that were true, it would be so much better.
> >
> > I get it. You failed reading comprehension in middle school.
>
> No, you didn't get it. Care to try again?

Humans can create gods in their imaginings.

There is no reason to suppose any other sort of gods exist.
--


Message has been deleted

Linuxgal

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 6:46:02 AM12/19/12
to
Virgil wrote:
> Since there is no more evidence of any hell than of any heaven for of
> any gods, you are saying that zero is a million times larger than zero,
> which even purely mathematically is false.

It's not even false, it's simply not allowed. You can't use zero as a
denominator.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

Linuxgal

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:03:50 AM12/19/12
to
duke wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:18:33 +0000 (UTC), niunian<niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> >More than 20 plus years ago, I was chosen by God personally to believe in
>> >him, follow him, and learn from him. After all these years, the feeling
>> >is still stronger than ever.
> I too returned after a 20 year absence. It took a while, but I simply could not
> accept that there was nothing more than the lousy life I was leading. Now it's
> wonderful.

Now he continues leads his lousy life, hating women and blacks and
eating supersized orders of fries, but he has added an irrational belief
in a god to the dreary gumbo.

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:11:29 AM12/19/12
to
On 12/18/2012 09:39 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:26:51 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:38:25 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:30:48 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are many religions, but there is only one God.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep saying this when it shows you clearly know nothing about
>>> other faith systems and especially those with multiple gods.
>>
>> Because I don't have to know other religions in order to know there is
>> only one God. Once I have known the one true God, I don't have to care
>> about other faith systems either with multiple gods or not.
>
> So you don't know any such thing, you just have a close-minded belief
> that there is only one god and don't want to be asked about your
> prejudices.
>

It's not a belief, it's knowledge that there is only one true God. At
least, that is what happened to me right from the beginning.

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:18:02 AM12/19/12
to
Absolutely not.

>
> That is the kind of LORD you worship?
>

Absolutely no.

Linuxgal

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:21:55 AM12/19/12
to
Virgil wrote:
> For example, no woman can ever give any man the experience of giving
> birth to a child

Men also don't get the chocolate thing. But we don't get your Three
Stooges thing, so I guess we're even.

•RLMeasures

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:07:17 AM12/19/12
to
In article <md43d854a285q7v3l...@4ax.com>, Attila
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:08:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) in
> alt.abortion with message-id <r-1812121...@10.0.1.3> wrote:
>
> >In article <jkk1d8tivd1c44nso...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:43 +1100, "Andrew W"
> ><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:ir7uc8p08anci0an8...@4ax.com
> >> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:10:41 +1100, "Andrew W"
> >> >> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:p2prc8plqjma1a95v...@4ax.com
> >> >>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:00:06 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> God willed the universe into existence.
> >> >>>>> Logic and reason cannot lead one to that conclusion.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Logic and reason is the only viable answer.
> >> >>
> >> >>> And your religion contains very little of both.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yet our Nicene Creed says "We believe...........".
> >>
> >> >You can believe all you like.
> >> >But you also often say "We know" such n such which is funny.
> >>
> >> No, I do not. I believe strongly in my heart, but I cannot say
definitively
> >> that God exists. ...
> >
> >• At last, a fleeting moment of lucidity.
>
> Except he continues to assert the existence of a god as if it is an
> actual proven fact. Yet he admits he has no rational basis for this
> assertion.

• Hence: "fleeting moment".
cheers Mr. Hun.

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:09:31 AM12/19/12
to
On 12/19/2012 07:46 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
> niunian wrote:
>> Virgil wrote:
>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> [... Bible reference snipped ...]
>>>
>>>>>> By that description, you should know what kind of god this LORD is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically the Sandy Hook killer, deified.
>>>>
>>>> If that were true, it would be so much better.
>>>
>>> More like a devil!
>>
>> You look like a quick learner. I'm surprised.
>
> Sounds as if that God, the one of the Bible,
> which is commonly called, God, by those who
> use the term, God, is not the God you speak of.

There is only one God. Because of that, there is also the devil
pretending to be God, the deceiver that has deceived the nations from
the beginning.


>
> You may be talking about some other God.
> Not the God of the Bible.

No.

>
> Is Shiva the same as Brahma?
>
> Did you snip
> the Book, Chapter, and Verse
> intentionally, having understood the reference?

No. Virgil is the one who always plays this kind of tricks.


>
> After comprehending the reading material?
>
> If so, is that an honest thing to do?
>

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:20:19 AM12/19/12
to
On 12/18/2012 09:38 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:49:07 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:01:47 -0600 Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:05:08 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:38:31 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:00:59 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some alleged gods are notoriously unmerciful! Like Kali, for
>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be a human error in perceiving God.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Kali was the god of death. Why is it people who claim to be
>>>>> spiritual and follow god(s) are so ignorant of all the other
>>>>> religions.
>>>>> Without knowing them how can you know you selected the right god out
>>>>> of all those thousands of gods that people claim exist?
>>>>
>>>> In that case, Kali has nothing to do with God, because God is life, not
>>>> death. If anything, it can only be the Devil.
>>>
>>> Gods are gods. You don't get to redefine what gods are to fit your
>>> delusions.
>>
>> I don't believe no gods. There is only God the one who gives life, but
>> there is also the deceiver the one which takes life.
>
> Why should I accept your claim about your god when you have absolutely
> no evidence that your teachings are true or that everyone else is wrong?
>

I think you really shouldn't just accept what I said as it is. They are
my understanding and my knowledge which mean nothing to you without you
having the similar practice and experience in realizing them.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 10:10:25 AM12/19/12
to
niunian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> niunian wrote:
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have personally invented your god.
>>>
>>>Not true. I was found by God.
>>
>> How do you know this to be true?
>>
>> Aside from your own personal realization.
>> Aside from in your own personal spirit.
>
>It's my personal experience. It actually happened in my real life.

I get that. I accept that.

But, let me see if I can ask in a different way.

How do you know it was God?

By what means do you or did you
ascertain what you call God to be God?

>>> At the time, fresh out of university in
>>>Beijing, having read only about Karl Marx in my entire young life, I
>>>didn't even know what God is. The concept was entirely alien to me.
>>
>> To think God found you is a wonderful thought.
>>
>> Amazing.
>>
>> Practially incredible.
>>
>> As some would have it.
>
>Incredible indeed. One moment in the presence of God is worth a million
>times death in the suffering hell.

Your experience was, no doubt,
a life-changing event for you.

Glorious. Beyond words.

If everyone had one
the world would be a different place.

Problems arise however
in that not everyone interprets a
mind-blowing experience the same.

Some folks, when their consciousness expands,
think they are God. The Messiah. The Chirst.
And then feel compelled to preach.

There are all sorts of levels
of realization, Self-realization, etc.

Sounds as if you had a good one.

You are very fortunate.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 10:20:10 AM12/19/12
to
Alan Ferris <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:59:53 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>> As some would have it.
>>
>>Incredible indeed. One moment in the presence of God is worth a million
>>times death in the suffering hell.
>
>Really, you realise that not once are flames ever mentioned with Satan yet they
>are always there when describing god.

Satan has a rocky history.

What was he at first, the adversary?

Or, in Job, probably written before Genesis,
at first he had access to the throne.

No. That must have been
after the incident in the Garden.

Then, on a huge ego trip, figured,
apparently in error, that he could
and would exalt his throne above
that of the Main Dude.

Which got him and his gang,
a large minority of about 33 1/3 %
into a long playing record of material
other than at vinyl speed.

He was seen falling, as Venus.
By Enoch? And entered into Judas,
all according to the plan hatched
before the first words of man
were uttered on stage.

Prior to the red-clay fabrication.

Every hero kneads something.
A villian, a dragon, yeah, he was
that too. Dragging stars around.

And the beast, the one with
however many horns or heads,
when it was cast with death
into the bottomless pit,
how can hell and the grave
be cast in such a fashion?

Or was it?
Where the worm persists.
And the garbage heap burns.
Outside the city, the New Salem.

New New Peace.
Reminds me of Futurama.

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 10:23:11 AM12/19/12
to
I have nothing else to say if you insist to be illogical.

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 10:51:45 AM12/19/12
to
On 12/19/2012 04:30 AM, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:53 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> There is something that is seriously wrong in this picture. No
>>>> government should allow this to happen continuously and still doing
>>>> nothing. It's unbelievable to say the least. I should lay the blame
>>>> entirely on your head of state, but he is nothing but a figurehead with
>>>> no real power to change anything.
>>>
>>> Yes, we have constitutional law, thank God. We have the right to bear
>>> arms, and no army can invade this country without facing an armed
>>> American behind every tree.
>
>>> But the real problem is the finger on the trigger and not the trigger on
>>> the gun. People kill people with gun or knife or grenade, and it is
>>> the ungodly and the mentally sick that do such things. People of God
>>> don't. We need to face facts and evaluate people, not guns.
>
>> In that case, I say setup a law that requires every mature citizen of the
>> United States to carry at least one gun at all times in public. Let's go
>> back to the wild wild west.
>
> The solution will not be an easy one. No gun ever killed anyone. It's takes a
> psychotic to do that. I've worried a long time about computer games. Maybe the
> real answer is to start at grade school level and maintain an "understanding" of
> every child.

Therefore, instead of allowing the government to take away your guns,
you want them to setup a profile to monitor everything you say and do
beginning from your school years in the name of "understanding". How
does that work for the freedom in America?


>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************
>

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 11:03:09 AM12/19/12
to
On 12/18/2012 08:55 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:44:43 -0600 duke wrote:
>>
>>> But the real problem is the finger on the trigger and not the trigger on
>>> the gun. People kill people with gun or knife or grenade, and it is
>>> the ungodly and the mentally sick that do such things. People of God
>>> don't. We need to face facts and evaluate people, not guns.
>
> Ahem.
>
>> In that case, I say setup a law that requires every mature citizen of the
>> United States to carry at least one gun at all times in public. Let's go
>> back to the wild wild west.
>
> In some States it's legal.
> I've heard that their crime rates drops.
>
> No idea how many kids get killed
> when playing around with guns at home
> nor what the homocide rate is.
>
> Usually gun-deaths occur in private.
>
> Public ones get more attention.
>

I think if America wants to fade away into history as quick as possible,
they should get even more guns. Once they have finished themselves off,
the Mexicans and the Canadians would be able to take over.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 12:10:56 PM12/19/12
to
Linuxgal wrote:
> duke wrote:
>> niunian wrote:
>>
>>> >More than 20 plus years ago, I was chosen by God personally to believe in
>>> >him, follow him, and learn from him. After all these years, the feeling
>>> >is still stronger than ever.
>
>> I too returned after a 20 year absence. It took a while, but I simply could not
>> accept that there was nothing more than the lousy life I was leading. Now it's
>> wonderful.
>
>Now he continues leads his lousy life, hating women and blacks and
>eating supersized orders of fries, but he has added an irrational belief
>in a god to the dreary gumbo.

Interesting, to me, is how niunian
didn't return from any absence.

His path was more akin to mine
in terms of not ever having lost anything.

When duke says that he too returned,
I don't know who is the too he is referring to,
to whom, unless, perhaps he misread niunian,
or perhaps it was I, who misread niunian.

I don't know about the dukester's prejudice,
bigotry, spirit of hate, or whatever possesses him,
or, presumably to what he remains in bondage,
assuming he is in a process of being delivered from
or outgrowing those old spirits or habit patterns,
ingrained, impressed upon him, inherited, or
however they got there, if they're there.

Irrational people can be the most interesting.

They tend not to make sense at the most
irrational times, just when you thought
maybe something rational would, like,
leap out at you, from within,
the machine, off the screen,
if you know what I mean.

And then it gets all into your head
and it's, well, like the gum, like you said,
that sticks to your shoe, if you happen to
be wearing shoes. Which I usually don't.

As if that makes a difference.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 12:26:42 PM12/19/12
to
Syd discerned:

>On Dec 18, 3:45 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:30:13 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:17:15 -0800 Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>
>> >> In article <kan636$3c...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niun...@ymail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:46:06 -0800 Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>
>> >>> > In article <kami3q$6r...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niun...@ymail.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:42:15 -0800 {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> > niunian wrote:
>> >>> >> >> {:-]))) wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> niunian wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>> niunian wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>I can be all things.
>>
>> >>> >> >>>>> One wonders if he can be an atheist.
>>
>> >>> >> >>>>Too late. I have learned to much about God.
>>
>> >>> >> >>> Then how can you be all things?
>>
>> >>> >> >>> Is being an atheist not being something?
>>
>> >>> >> >>> Perhaps you have something else in mind.
>>
>> >>> >> >>> Most atheists do.
>>
>> >>> >> >>> If you are all things,
>> >>> >> >>> then you are an atheist.
>>
>> >>> >> >>Perhaps I want to be something better than an atheist.
>>
>> >>> >> > That's great. No problem, imo.
>>
>> >>> >> > But if you could be all things,
>> >>> >> > as you appeared to claim at first, above,
>> >>> >> > then you could be an atheist.
>>
>> >>> >> > As well as being a fine theist.
>>
>> >>> >> > As well as being all other things.
>> >>> >> > Evil things. Things you might deny being.
>>
>> >>> >> > Perhaps you don't want to be all things.
>>
>> >>> >> > Even though perhaps you could be.
>>
>> >>> >> Among all things I could be, I have decided to be the best thing
>> >>> >> there is to be. That is to be a believer of God.
>>
>> >>> >  Why?
>>
>> >>> > Why did you make this decision?
>>
>> >>> > Why do you think being a "believer of God" is the best thing there is
>> >>> > to be"?
>>
>> >>> > What was the process that led you to make this decision.
>>
>> >>> > In other words, if you're trying to Witness, you need to actually
>> >>> > Witness.
>>
>> >>> More than 20 plus years ago, I was chosen by God personally to believe
>> >>> in him, follow him, and learn from him. After all these years, the
>> >>> feeling is still stronger than ever.
>>
>> >> You really need to be more specific than that if you want to actually
>> >> Witness.
>>
>> >I could, but what is the goodness in that other than giving you more
>> >opportunity to ridicule? It's really just my personal life.
>>
>> People like jd just don't get it.
>>
>>
>
>She gets it just fine.

It doth appear the spirit spoketh.
There were two that spoke as one.

>It's just not worth it, Dork.

That JD was able to call it out of niunian,
the Witness spirit, niunian's response testifies
to that motivation being within him.

That niunian feels ridiculed by him witnessing
is another spirit about him. A spirit of ridicule.
There is plenty of that flying around. It speaks
out of his mouth as well as off the tongue,
from within the hearts of many here.

But, on yet a third level, niunian's probable
reading of Witness as other than intended
suggests he is unconscious of both
of the other two spirits, so to speak.

Hence, between the three, speaking
as it were all at once in the same sentence,
it may be difficult to tell which is the real niunian.

His genetic personality, his essential self,
assuming there is such a thing,
could be pushed back way, cornered,
hidden, among his neural nets.

I'd guess he's akin to most folk,
as far as a child within goes.

And as far as duke goes,
while JD was quite probably correct,
so to may have duke been.

What she gets on one level
she might not get on another
level in her ability to reason, to see,
or appreciate what niunian is all about.

Her heart is in the right place, afaict.

Sometimes one's knows gets broken
and is said to be out of joint.
Perhaps it never was.
To begin with.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 12:38:59 PM12/19/12
to
James wrote:
>niunian wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:03:51 -0700 Virgil wrote:
>
>>> How can we tell whether that alleged spirit that you alleged
>>> is living in your heart is not an evil one in drag?
>>
>> Because it's the heart. There can be no evil heart. The heart
>> is always good because that's where the spirit of God lives.
>
>I cannot find the words to express how intensely I disagree with this.
>
>Have you ever heard the expression "The road to Hell is paved
>with good intentions"? Even if you *intend* to do good (which
>not all people do), you can do great evil.

But that suggests one's heart is good.
At least, as far as good might be good.

The intentions were honorable.
As far as one's honor went.

>You have the responsibility to use *all* of your abilities,
>your mind as well as your heart, to find the correct thing to do.

Which is all good and well and correct.

A problem arises at times
in that what is correct for one person
is not necessarily correct for another
nor for others, upon whom the intention
happened to happen.

>And, even then, you (anyone) should be humble about the possibility
>of you just being wrong.

If only that should could
be how things are.

And even if one is humble,
admitting that possibility, the standards
by which folks do what they do
differ from culture to culture,
family to family, and from
person to person.

>I pity your neighbors. Is your heart going to tell you to
>poison them all some night? You don't think so, but some of
>the worst atrocities in history have been committed by
>people who thought they had good hearts.

Usually psychopaths have no remorse.
Their brains are not wired for empathy.

Most always, they are termed as being
mentally ill, sick, defective, damaged.

And they are, in the culture
that they happen to be found in.

Could be their mirror neurons
didn't take hold, or that they were
abused while growing up.

The feelings, if any, experienced
by a so-called perpetrator are probably
felt as being good. Their hearts,
in their own minds, are good.

Too bad bad can be so bad
when good is thought and felt
to be so good.

- very Taoist, t'hat

Alan Ferris

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:08:33 PM12/19/12
to
But how can you know that when you know nothing about the other gods. Why are
you holding such disbelief in them when any one of them might turn out to be the
right god and you have only been led astray in thinking yours is the right one.
--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")

Alan Ferris

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:12:24 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:35:56 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:02:25 +0000, Alan Ferris wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:45:03 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is a change over the last couple of days. At first you claimed
>>>> there was proof but that only certain people could see it. Now we are
>>>> down to only you can see it.
>>>
>>>No, my personal understanding is open for anyone who has the eyes to see.
>>
>> So what will these people see. Why can they only see it? What special
>> skill sets do they need to see it. Can you provide a name of at least one
>> person who has seen it?
>>
>>>The fact some of you can not see and recognize it, is only the proof of
>>>your spiritual blindness. It does not mean no one else can understand
>>>except I myself.
>>
>> Right. So when the madman claims he can see the giant bunny rabbit and
>> claims you cannot see it because you are blind. Do you believe him? --
>
>I may not believe him, but I tell him I agree with him and back away, very
>slowly.

LOL, and be sure not to trip over a rabbit.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:31:44 PM12/19/12
to
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:53 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:44:43 -0600 duke wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:09:57 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:08:35 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:59:41 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, without believing in God, I would be.
>>>>>
>>>>>People who gun down 20 little kids in school are spiritually blind.
>>>>
>>>> Stop abusing these children by using their memory to promote your
>>>> hatred. It takes a sick mind to choose to not feel sorry for the
>>>> children but to see them as a tool to be used to promote their faith,
>>>
>>>There is something that is seriously wrong in this picture. No
>>>government should allow this to happen continuously and still doing
>>>nothing. It's unbelievable to say the least. I should lay the blame
>>>entirely on your head of state, but he is nothing but a figurehead with
>>>no real power to change anything.
>>
>> Yes, we have constitutional law, thank God. We have the right to bear
>> arms, and no army can invade this country without facing an armed
>> American behind every tree.
>>
>> But the real problem is the finger on the trigger and not the trigger on
>> the gun. People kill people with gun or knife or grenade, and it is
>> the ungodly and the mentally sick that do such things. People of God
>> don't. We need to face facts and evaluate people, not guns.

>In that case, I say setup a law that requires every mature citizen of the
>United States to carry at least one gun at all times in public. Let's go
>back to the wild wild west.

That would sure stop the violence.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:43:37 PM12/19/12
to
The US government has absolutely no idea who has guns. Only the registered ones
are known. Drug deal and 'hood killings are not done with registered guns,
certainly not by the owner.

The country has heavy opportunity to spot those over the edge and start their
treatments early in life.

Sane, mentally-normal people of God don't gun down 20 children.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:45:35 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:39:36 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:34:19 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:56:40 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:10:54 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 16, 8:45 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:32:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:35:59 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niun...@ymail.com>
>>>>> >wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>> >>Actually, without believing in God, I would be.
>>>>>
>>>>> >So you assert. Please offer evidence or a valid argument to support
>>>>> >your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide evidence that you were born and not hatched.
>>
>>>> Empty demand.
>>>> You know humans are born and not hatched, asshole.
>>
>>>Duck's experience is different.
>>
>> Personally, I was born.
>
>We've only your word for that, puke. The word of a known liar.

Cool.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:46:11 PM12/19/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:38:40 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:32:55 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:43 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ir7uc8p08anci0an8...@4ax.com
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:10:41 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:p2prc8plqjma1a95v...@4ax.com
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:00:06 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God willed the universe into existence.
>>>>>>> Logic and reason cannot lead one to that conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>>> Logic and reason is the only viable answer.
>>>>
>>>>> And your religion contains very little of both.
>>>>
>>>> Yet our Nicene Creed says "We believe...........".
>>
>>>You can believe all you like.
>>>But you also often say "We know" such n such which is funny.
>>
>> No, I do not. I believe strongly in my heart, but I cannot say
>> definitively that God exists.
>
>Thanks for admitting that you don't know, only believe, that your god
>exists.
>Now, perhaps, you could tell us what led you to that belief and why you
>believe it.

The evidence cannot be denied.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:48:30 PM12/19/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:52:04 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:37:36 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:14:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:09:20 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:02:30 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:38:11 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:50:36 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:12:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:00:06 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>God willed the universe into existence.
>>>>>>>>>Logic and reason cannot lead one to that conclusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Logic and reason is the only viable answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Logic and reason can not provide any answers in a universe where an
>>>>>>>omnipotent being can suspend natural law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>God started natural law. Why would he suspend it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why stop there, Dook?
>>>>>If natural law can be suspended, then there's no such thing as natural
>>>>>law, and -nothing- can be determined by logic and reason.
>>>>
>>>>God didn't suspend natural law. What makes you think he did?
>>>
>>>God is credited with acts which cannot have happened under well
>>>understood laws of physics.
>>
>> Well, truthfully, God created the laws of physics and so he can suspend
>> them if he wishes.

>Duke, you've contradicted yourself....again!
>"God didn't suspend natural law. What makes you think he did?"

You're confused again.

>"God created the laws of physics and so he can suspend them if he wishes."
>Only one of those assertions can be true (they _can_ both be false), so
>one way or another, you _must_ have lied.
>Gotcha!

Only in the cobwebs in the 6" between your ears.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:53:34 PM12/19/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>Yep, you're stuck.
>Nope.

>>>When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still in the
>>>sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the fishes, as a
>>>few examples

>>1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a regional flood.

>The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
>certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
>involved.

Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of the bible not
scientific.

>And, as I noted before, in a universe where miracles can occur, one
>can't use logic and reason to know anything.
>That means that you can't use logic and reason to determine which
>parts of the Bible are true and which are not, as you tried to do.

I never said that.

>>2. Everything got dark at 3pm. Maybe people thought is was another day.
>Maybe?
>Maybe???

Maybe.

>In other words, you're -making shit up-, Dook.

No, it's in the bible.

>>3. The Eucharist is spiritual nourishment which remains under the visual, taste
>>and texture of the substance of bread and wine.
>You're -making shit up- again, Dook.
>The above is not from the Bible.

Sure it is. Besides, you poor fools keep getting hung up on the bible. The
bible is not the only source of historical evidence for long ago.

>>4. Maybe Jesus got the other people to offer up their own food supplies.
>That's not what the Bible claims.
>The Bible claims that there was a -miracle- involved.

That's very possible.

>Are you saying that the Bible, and this is New Testament now, is
>bullshit?

No, just your ability to comprehend.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:55:20 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:48:39 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:s0l1d8hcboef0u9ug...@4ax.com
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:45:33 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1u7uc8lql7m46jqpu...@4ax.com
>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:50:36 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:12:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:00:06 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God willed the universe into existence.
>>>>>>> Logic and reason cannot lead one to that conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logic and reason is the only viable answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Logic and reason can not provide any answers in a universe where an
>>>>> omnipotent being can suspend natural law.
>>>>
>>>> God started natural law. Why would he suspend it?
>>
>>> To produce mirracles?
>>
>>> To raise the dead, including Christ's resurection?
>>> To heal the sick?
>>> To part the red sea? Etc, etc.
>>> Well maybe none of those happened.

>> Jesus was a man. He couldn't do those things himself.

>The Catholic church maintains that Jesus was both God and man.
>And Jesus said the Father and I are one.

And the Bible and the CC both acknowledge that Jesus emptied himself of his
divinity so that he could live fully like a man so he could find out what it was
to be flesh.

>
>
>So now I guess you concede that God does suspend natural laws.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:56:00 PM12/19/12
to
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:04:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:19:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:54:50 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Jesus assigned St Peter as the first pope in 32AD. Pope Benedict 16 is not
>>>>#266. About midway, the EOC checked out. Logic and reason do you in again.
>>
>>>Nope.
>>>You don't get to decide who left the Church, Dook.
>>>The EOC says the Pope left when he became a heretic and started his
>>>own religion.
>>
>>Words of the mentally deficient.
>
>Surrender noted, Dook.
>
>I win.

Don't forget to flush the toilet.

duke

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 2:57:49 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:03:50 -0800, Linuxgal <tere...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:18:33 +0000 (UTC), niunian<niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >More than 20 plus years ago, I was chosen by God personally to believe in
>>> >him, follow him, and learn from him. After all these years, the feeling
>>> >is still stronger than ever.
>> I too returned after a 20 year absence. It took a while, but I simply could not
>> accept that there was nothing more than the lousy life I was leading. Now it's
>> wonderful.
>
>Now he continues leads his lousy life

Now, I'm very happy.

>hating women

I love the ladies.

>blacks and

Some of my good friends and some of my priests are black.

>eating supersized orders of fries, but he has added an irrational belief
>in a god to the dreary gumbo.

Gumbo is heavenly, especially duck gumbo. In fact, all gumbos.

Andrew W

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 3:10:18 PM12/19/12
to
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8q64d8dm66c73hm5c...@4ax.com
Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus "emptied himself of his divinity"?
I think you made that up. He performed miracles and showed wisdom way
beyond his means.


--
Religions breed hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Many Christians spend more time looking down on other people than up
towards Christ.


Alan Ferris

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 3:16:19 PM12/19/12
to
As you have shown yourself incapable of knowing what logic is you will
understand why everybody is laughing at you.
Message has been deleted

Alan Ferris

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 5:00:09 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:09:31 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>> Sounds as if that God, the one of the Bible,
>> which is commonly called, God, by those who
>> use the term, God, is not the God you speak of.
>
>There is only one God. Because of that, there is also the devil
>pretending to be God, the deceiver that has deceived the nations from
>the beginning.

So how do you know you have chosen the right one. Would not a god be about
truth and honesty and not about denying truth and hiding from reality? If your
spirituality had been more honest and willing to learn I would have respected
your right to believe what you want. However you have repeat idly shown the
opposite. How do you explain that?

Virgil

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 5:19:30 PM12/19/12
to
In article <kasatl$g0b$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> > So you don't know any such thing, you just have a close-minded belief
> > that there is only one god and don't want to be asked about your
> > prejudices.
> >
>
> It's not a belief, it's knowledge that there is only one true God. At
> least, that is what happened to me right from the beginning.

Anything which you cannot satisfactorily prove to me and other atheists
remains, at least to me and those other atheists, mere belief.
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 5:29:15 PM12/19/12
to
In article <kasm53$kql$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
The issue is whether what I insist on or what you insist on is the real
logic.

What I insist on, things like the theory of evolution, are backed up by
massive amounts of objective physical evidence.

I do not insist on the nonexistence of gods in general or your
particular notion of a god in particular, but nether do I believe in
the existence of any of them.

Since, to the best of my knowledge, there is neither any objective
physical evidence supporting any claim of any gods existences or claim
of all gods nonexistence, I do not support either claim.

Since all the beliefs that I support here, like the reality of
evolution, are backed by immense amounts of objective physical
evidence, but none of yours are, you are the one who is ignoring
reality.
--


Jeanne Douglas

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 5:39:55 PM12/19/12
to
In article <kasm53$kql$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
If only that were true.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

Jeanne Douglas

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 6:37:13 PM12/19/12
to
In article <ib64d89e71a1t2lnp...@4ax.com>,
If the evidence cannot be presented, it can most certainly be denied.

Smiler

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:45:28 PM12/19/12
to
That would be you, puke. You can't even get your story straight from one
moment to the next, you're so confused.

>
>>"God created the laws of physics and so he can suspend them if he
>>wishes." Only one of those assertions can be true (they _can_ both be
>>false), so one way or another, you _must_ have lied. Gotcha!
>

<non-answer snipped>

As usual you run away, chicken puke.
What was that about you being hatched?
Pock, pock, puke.

>
> The duck and runster,
>************* You can't fix puke's total stupidity and cowardice.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

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

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:55:35 PM12/19/12
to
On 12/18/2012 08:55 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:44:43 -0600 duke wrote:
>>
>>> But the real problem is the finger on the trigger and not the trigger on
>>> the gun. People kill people with gun or knife or grenade, and it is
>>> the ungodly and the mentally sick that do such things. People of God
>>> don't. We need to face facts and evaluate people, not guns.
>
> Ahem.
>
>> In that case, I say setup a law that requires every mature citizen of the
>> United States to carry at least one gun at all times in public. Let's go
>> back to the wild wild west.
>

Silen...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:57:59 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:53:34 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>Yep, you're stuck.
>>Nope.
>
>>>>When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still in the
>>>>sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the fishes, as a
>>>>few examples
>
>>>1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a regional flood.
>
>>The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
>>certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
>>involved.
>
>Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of the bible not
>scientific.

Yet, you can't explain how one is to determine which parts of the
Bible are not scientific and can safely be ignored and which parts
must be taken as written.

You tried to invoke logic and reason as a tool for making such a
determination, but, of course, that crashed and burned because one
can't use logic and reason to apprehend a universe in which miracles
are possible.


>>And, as I noted before, in a universe where miracles can occur, one
>>can't use logic and reason to know anything.
>>That means that you can't use logic and reason to determine which
>>parts of the Bible are true and which are not, as you tried to do.
>
>I never said that.

Yes, you did.

You invoked logic and reason to explain how you knew which parts of
the Bible aren't scientific.

I just pointed out the flaws in your method.


>>>2. Everything got dark at 3pm. Maybe people thought is was another day.
>>Maybe?
>>Maybe???
>
>Maybe.
>
>>In other words, you're -making shit up-, Dook.
>
>No, it's in the bible.

The event is in the Bible.

Your possible explanation is not.


>>>3. The Eucharist is spiritual nourishment which remains under the visual, taste
>>>and texture of the substance of bread and wine.
>>You're -making shit up- again, Dook.
>>The above is not from the Bible.
>
>Sure it is.

No, it isn't.

>Besides, you poor fools keep getting hung up on the bible. The
>bible is not the only source of historical evidence for long ago.

It's the only source of evidence for the Christian God, Dook.

The proper understanding of God is what we're talking about, in case
you can't recall.


>>>4. Maybe Jesus got the other people to offer up their own food supplies.
>>That's not what the Bible claims.
>>The Bible claims that there was a -miracle- involved.
>
>That's very possible.

Well, then we're back to my point concerning miracles and using logic
and reason to understand the universe.

Logic and reason are useless in apprehending a universe in which
miracles are possible.

>>Are you saying that the Bible, and this is New Testament now, is
>>bullshit?
>
>No, just your ability to comprehend.

I comprehend that you're dodging, dancing and making shit up, Dook,
just as theists have always done.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

Silen...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 7:58:56 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:56:00 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:04:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:19:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:54:50 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Jesus assigned St Peter as the first pope in 32AD. Pope Benedict 16 is not
>>>>>#266. About midway, the EOC checked out. Logic and reason do you in again.
>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>>You don't get to decide who left the Church, Dook.
>>>>The EOC says the Pope left when he became a heretic and started his
>>>>own religion.
>>>
>>>Words of the mentally deficient.
>>
>>Surrender noted, Dook.
>>
>>I win.
>
>Don't forget to flush the toilet.

I don't want to flush.

I'd rather keep you around, Dook.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.





>

Smiler

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:02:13 PM12/19/12
to
Agreed. They have to be deranged Christians to do that.

>
>
> The dukester, Deranged - Christian
> **************** You can't fix puke's total stupidity.

Free Lunch

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:09:10 PM12/19/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:45:35 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:39:36 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:34:19 -0600, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:56:40 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:10:54 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:45 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:32:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:35:59 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niun...@ymail.com>
>>>>>> >wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>> >>Actually, without believing in God, I would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >So you assert. Please offer evidence or a valid argument to support
>>>>>> >your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please provide evidence that you were born and not hatched.
>>>
>>>>> Empty demand.
>>>>> You know humans are born and not hatched, asshole.
>>>
>>>>Duck's experience is different.
>>>
>>> Personally, I was born.
>>
>>We've only your word for that, puke. The word of a known liar.
>
>Cool.

It takes a strange view of the world to be proud to be known as a liar.

Smiler

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:09:24 PM12/19/12
to
I back away, not only very slowly, but also very carefully.
But I hear it's lucky to find a rabbit's foot.

Linuxgal

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:12:56 PM12/19/12
to
Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:53:34 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>>>> >>>Yep, you're stuck.
>>> >>Nope.
>> >
>>>>> >>>>When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still in the
>>>>> >>>>sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the fishes, as a
>>>>> >>>>few examples
>> >
>>>> >>>1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a regional flood.
>> >
>>> >>The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
>>> >>certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
>>> >>involved.
>> >
>> >Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of the bible not
>> >scientific.
> Yet, you can't explain how one is to determine which parts of the
> Bible are not scientific and can safely be ignored and which parts
> must be taken as written.

It's fairly simple, actually. There are no parts of the Bible which are
scientific.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

Smiler

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:14:16 PM12/19/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:51:31 -0800, {:-]))) wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:48:42 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:40:10 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:10:05 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:18:33 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>More than 20 plus years ago, I was chosen by God personally to believe
>>>>>in him, follow him, and learn from him.
>>>>
>>>> Where were you when he did this? Did he put his hand on your shoulder
>>>> or call your name out and ask you to step forward? What does he look
>>>> like. What did he specifically say to you?
>>>>
>>>> I am interested as it is not many people who have claimed to have been
>>>> chosen personally by god.
>>>
>>>Sorry, I think I have already given you too much personal information
>>>over the internet. Yesterday, I wasn't entirely being myself. I need to
>>>refocus to talk about God and his love & truth.
>>
>>Are you embarrassed by what you wrote? I can understand if you are. You
>>really need to stop and think a bit more before you post.
>>
>>It is interesting you mention truth. You post seem very lacking in ti
>>sometimes. Just because you are ignorant of something does not excuse
>>you lying about a subject. Especially as you tend to keep repeating the
>>error even after people try to correct you.
>>
>>I have no problem with you believing in god, what I do object to is when
>>you post inaccurate claims about the world or other people.
>
> Maybe, sometimes, he thinks
> that he is actually telling the truth.
>
> But then,
> when he gets caught up in the words,
> he tries to shift his position so it makes sense.
>
> But,
> not being able to reconcile
> what he asserted to begin with,
> with what became apparent later,
> he changes the subject.
>
> And when all else fails,
> ad hominem.
>
> Logic?
> Truth?
> Honesty?
>

That's an almost complete and very accurate description of most of the
theists we get here, on a.a. The only thing I'd add is that they _never_
admit to any error on their part.

We know them by their fruits.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 8:45:32 PM12/19/12
to
Smiler wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> The absolute value
>> had recently occurred to me.
>> Not long ago. Mere moments.
>> A few minutes at most.
>>
>> The absolute value is always positive. And when it isn't it is
>> indeterminate.
>
>Absolute zero (-273.15 degrees C) is both negative and determinate.

Yes.

But the absolute value of absolute zero,
apparently, given where zero is,
is 273.15 degrees C.

That is the distance
in degrees that it is
from zero before it
becomes absolute.

As far as eye nose,
distance is always positive
when measured from zero
and spoken of in terms of
being an absolute value.

Then again however,
not being a mathematician,
I can't really say for sure.

The absolute value of which I speak
might be in terms of the Real numbers.
With Complex numbers, it may be possible.

Not having taken a course in that, of course,
this horse is unable to speak. Except to point
at the square root of a minus one. Aye.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 9:12:02 PM12/19/12
to
niunian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> niunian wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>> Linuxgal wrote:
>>>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>>> Linuxgal wrote:
>>>>>>>> uncited quoted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2 Kings 2:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [23] And [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was
>>>>>>>>> going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the
>>>>>>>>> city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go
>>>>>>>>> up, thou bald head.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [24] And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the
>>>>>>>>> name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the
>>>>>>>>> wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By that description, you should know what kind of god this LORD is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically the Sandy Hook killer, deified.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that were true, it would be so much better.
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Are you saying that you approve
>> of the slaughter of innocent children?
>
>Absolutely not.

You appeared to agree
that if the Sandy Hook killer were deified,
which is to say, made into a god of some sort,
that would be so much better.

What you said appears to suggest
that you are in complete approval
with what the Sandy Hook killer did.

>> That is the kind of LORD you worship?
>>
>
>Absolutely no.

Then why did you write what you wrote?

The comparison was made
between what the LORD did
and what the Sandy Hook killer did.

It was to show that it was, basically, the same.

You appeared to agree.

Now, are you saying you disagree?

Did you not comprehend the comparison?

The LORD is the Lord God of the Bible.

When you use the term, God, it denotes,
that is to say, points directly to,
is defined as being, the God of the Bible.

The same LORD that killed all the kids.

Are you suggesting, in your view, God,
the God of the Bible, is the devil?

Or did Elisha conjure up the devil
in the name of the LORD?

Even so,
why would it be better
if the Sandy Hook killer were deified?

That makes no sense.

Please clarify.

Andrew W

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 9:21:39 PM12/19/12
to
"Linuxgal" <tere...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:-96dnRvwbN-F-0_N...@giganews.com
Exactly.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 9:23:23 PM12/19/12
to
Linuxgal wrote:
>Virgil wrote:
>
>> Since there is no more evidence of any hell than of any heaven for of
>> any gods, you are saying that zero is a million times larger than zero,
>> which even purely mathematically is false.
>
>It's not even false, it's simply not allowed. You can't use zero as a
>denominator.

I thought he was multiplying,
like a Bizarro Occam.

With division,
with zero in the denominator
the quotient is undefined.

As I understand it,
this is due to the possibility
of it being anything.

As x approaches zero,
the quotient approaches infinity
when moving from right to left
on the number line.

Coming in from the other direction,
a negative infinity appears in view.

In the side mirrors,
objects may be larger
than they appear.

I forget how anything
enters the picture.

Linuxgal

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 9:28:15 PM12/19/12
to
{:-]))) wrote:
> Linuxgal wrote:
>> >Virgil wrote:
>> >
>>> >>Since there is no more evidence of any hell than of any heaven for of
>>> >>any gods, you are saying that zero is a million times larger than zero,
>>> >>which even purely mathematically is false.
>> >
>> >It's not even false, it's simply not allowed. You can't use zero as a
>> >denominator.
> I thought he was multiplying,
> like a Bizarro Occam.
>
> With division,
> with zero in the denominator
> the quotient is undefined.
>
> As I understand it,
> this is due to the possibility
> of it being anything.

If you can divide by zero, then you can prove 2 = 1

a = x [true for some a's and x's]
a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 10:06:07 PM12/19/12
to
Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:34:19 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:56:40 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:10:54 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 16, 8:45 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:32:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:35:59 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niun...@ymail.com>
>>>>> >wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>> >>Actually, without believing in God, I would be.
>>>>>
>>>>> >So you assert. Please offer evidence or a valid argument to support
>>>>> >your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide evidence that you were born and not hatched.
>>
>>>> Empty demand.
>>>> You know humans are born and not hatched, asshole.
>>
>>>Duck's experience is different.
>>
>> Personally, I was born.
>
>We've only your word for that, puke. The word of a known liar.

Kinda reminds me of the guy in Bootcamp.

The DIs keep calling some recruit
Puke Scumbag. I never was sure
if it was one guy or two. Prolly one.

But they often used the plural.
Maybe two guys with the same name.

Cud hoppin.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 10:10:52 PM12/19/12
to
niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 12/18/2012 09:39 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:26:51 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:38:25 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:30:48 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are many religions, but there is only one God.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you keep saying this when it shows you clearly know nothing about
>>>> other faith systems and especially those with multiple gods.
>>>
>>> Because I don't have to know other religions in order to know there is
>>> only one God. Once I have known the one true God, I don't have to care
>>> about other faith systems either with multiple gods or not.
>>
>> So you don't know any such thing, you just have a close-minded belief
>> that there is only one god and don't want to be asked about your
>> prejudices.
>>
>
>It's not a belief, it's knowledge that there is only one true God. At
>least, that is what happened to me right from the beginning.

Some might call it a projection
which when extrapolated
creates an appearance.

The appearance is genuine.
The experience is very real.

Totally phenomenal.
Absolutely.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 10:20:30 PM12/19/12
to
Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>In article <kaq5d8$m18$5...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:56:04 -0800 Linuxgal wrote:
>>
>> > niunian wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:12:18 -0800 Linuxgal wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> >niunian wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>> >[24] And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them
>> >>>>>> >>> >in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears
>> >>>>>> >>> >out of the wood,
>> >>>>>> >>> >and tare forty and two children of them.
>
>> >>>> >>By that description, you should know what kind of god this LORD is.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Basically the Sandy Hook killer, deified.
>
>> >> If that were true, it would be so much better.
>> >
>> > I get it. You failed reading comprehension in middle school.
>>
>> No, you didn't get it. Care to try again?
>
>Humans can create gods in their imaginings.

They certainly can, and may.

>There is no reason to suppose any other sort of gods exist.

For those who see things different,
it's basically the other way round.

In their experience,
they may know, without a doubt,
about the reality of what, who, how
and other stuff about what happened.

They might hear a voice.
They might simply know.
Experiences vary.

Mystical experiences can be of a variety.

Why the brain projects, "out there"
what occurs inside of it and is then taken
to be what's called "reality" can be a trip.

Things certainly appear to be, "out there"
as trees, the computer screen, many things.

And yet, supposedly, it's all going on
inside your head, my head, and at times
over the heads of others.

What he means by his apparent appreciation
of the Sandy Hook killer, to the extent that he
thinks it would be so much better to deify him,
your guess is as good as mine. Maybe better!

Even if the LORD in the story is, in his view,
not the same God as whatever he knows God to be,
why he'd want to deify the Sandy Hook killer
remains a mystery to me.

Sounds a bit off.

- rocks rocker

niunian

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 11:22:44 PM12/19/12
to
On 12/20/2012 03:08 AM, Alan Ferris wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:11:29 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/2012 09:39 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:26:51 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:38:25 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:30:48 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are many religions, but there is only one God.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep saying this when it shows you clearly know nothing about
>>>>> other faith systems and especially those with multiple gods.
>>>>
>>>> Because I don't have to know other religions in order to know there is
>>>> only one God. Once I have known the one true God, I don't have to care
>>>> about other faith systems either with multiple gods or not.
>>>
>>> So you don't know any such thing, you just have a close-minded belief
>>> that there is only one god and don't want to be asked about your
>>> prejudices.
>>>
>>
>> It's not a belief, it's knowledge that there is only one true God. At
>> least, that is what happened to me right from the beginning.
>
> But how can you know that when you know nothing about the other gods. Why are
> you holding such disbelief in them when any one of them might turn out to be the
> right god and you have only been led astray in thinking yours is the right one.

Because I have known the one true God ever since I started to believe in
him. From that day on, nothing in this world could take me away from him.

Andrew W

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 11:58:13 PM12/19/12
to
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:933vc8lkadqakib96...@4ax.com
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:26:11 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The Catechism is only a bunch of speculation about 'God' and how we
>> should make him happy through faith and sacraments so he'll give us
>> a big reward (like a dog getting a big bone).
>> There is zero evidence that 'God' was ever unhappy, or that we can
>> ever make him happy, let alone what this 'God' is in the first place.
>> And if we only make this 'God' happy to get a reward then we're not
>> truly good anyway.
>> Its all made up childish religious nonsense that hasn't really
>> succeeded in making this world a much better place.
>
> May God help this poor heretic.
>

That word is no longer in use. You're still living in the past it seems.
There's your problem.

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 12:18:29 AM12/20/12
to
On 12/19/2012 11:10 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
> niunian wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>> niunian wrote:
>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You have personally invented your god.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. I was found by God.
>>>
>>> How do you know this to be true?
>>>
>>> Aside from your own personal realization.
>>> Aside from in your own personal spirit.
>>
>> It's my personal experience. It actually happened in my real life.
>
> I get that. I accept that.
>
> But, let me see if I can ask in a different way.
>
> How do you know it was God?
>
> By what means do you or did you
> ascertain what you call God to be God?

I didn't know he was God at the time. I was amazed beyond words but I
had no idea what was happening to me. I thought during my meditation I
was able to meet some ancient Taoist master who was still alive and was
living somewhere in the mountains. It was what happened about a week
after that gave me the proof who he was. About a week after, out of pure
coincidence, I was shown a picture of him and was told who he was.

From there, everything else started.


>
>>>> At the time, fresh out of university in
>>>> Beijing, having read only about Karl Marx in my entire young life, I
>>>> didn't even know what God is. The concept was entirely alien to me.
>>>
>>> To think God found you is a wonderful thought.
>>>
>>> Amazing.
>>>
>>> Practially incredible.
>>>
>>> As some would have it.
>>
>> Incredible indeed. One moment in the presence of God is worth a million
>> times death in the suffering hell.
>
> Your experience was, no doubt,
> a life-changing event for you.
>
> Glorious. Beyond words.
>
> If everyone had one
> the world would be a different place.
>
> Problems arise however
> in that not everyone interprets a
> mind-blowing experience the same.
>
> Some folks, when their consciousness expands,
> think they are God. The Messiah. The Chirst.
> And then feel compelled to preach.
>
> There are all sorts of levels
> of realization, Self-realization, etc.
>
> Sounds as if you had a good one.
>
> You are very fortunate.
>

Yes. It humbles me to this day and it's going to last to the end of me.

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 12:32:25 AM12/20/12
to
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was, if it was the Sandy Hook
killer made into god to have caused all those bloodsheds, then it would
be a much easier thing to be dealt with. Unfortunately, we don't have
such luck. It was something much more horrible than some Sandy Hook killer.

>
>>> That is the kind of LORD you worship?
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely no.
>
> Then why did you write what you wrote?
>
> The comparison was made
> between what the LORD did
> and what the Sandy Hook killer did.
>
> It was to show that it was, basically, the same.
>
> You appeared to agree.
>
> Now, are you saying you disagree?
>
> Did you not comprehend the comparison?
>
> The LORD is the Lord God of the Bible.
>
> When you use the term, God, it denotes,
> that is to say, points directly to,
> is defined as being, the God of the Bible.
>
> The same LORD that killed all the kids.
>
> Are you suggesting, in your view, God,
> the God of the Bible, is the devil?

Yes.

Virgil

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 1:27:11 AM12/20/12
to
In article <kau7ta$n34$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> > What you said appears to suggest
> > that you are in complete approval
> > with what the Sandy Hook killer did.
>
> No, that's not what I meant.

Then why did you say it?
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 1:30:28 AM12/20/12
to
In article <kau3qq$7nn$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> > But how can you know that when you know nothing about the other gods. Why
> > are
> > you holding such disbelief in them when any one of them might turn out to
> > be the
> > right god and you have only been led astray in thinking yours is the right
> > one.
>
> Because I have known the one true God ever since I started to believe in
> him.

HOW did you come to know that?

It appears to be a lrap of faith made without benefit of any objective
evidence, which would make it invalid as a reliable way to find truth.
--


Virgil

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 1:31:26 AM12/20/12
to
In article <kau739$kpf$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/19/2012 11:10 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
> > niunian wrote:
> >> {:-]))) wrote:
> >>> niunian wrote:
> >>>> Free Lunch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You have personally invented your god.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not true. I was found by God.
> >>>
> >>> How do you know this to be true?
> >>>
> >>> Aside from your own personal realization.
> >>> Aside from in your own personal spirit.
> >>
> >> It's my personal experience. It actually happened in my real life.
> >
> > I get that. I accept that.
> >
> > But, let me see if I can ask in a different way.
> >
> > How do you know it was God?
> >
> > By what means do you or did you
> > ascertain what you call God to be God?
>
> I didn't know he was God at the time. I was amazed beyond words but I
> had no idea what was happening to me. I thought during my meditation I
> was able to meet some ancient Taoist master who was still alive and was
> living somewhere in the mountains. It was what happened about a week
> after that gave me the proof who he was. About a week after, out of pure
> coincidence, I was shown a picture of him and was told who he was.

What were you smoking?
--


duke

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 7:33:01 AM12/20/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:23:11 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 12/19/2012 12:02 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> In article <kapk1t$tf1$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:46:24 -0700 Virgil wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <kan420$3d3$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The first grade class in logic says, you can only compare an apple with
>>>>> another apple, you can not compare an apple with an orange. In your
>>>>> case,
>>>>> you can only reject religious beliefs based on your secular belief, you
>>>>> can not reject religious beliefs based on your pretended ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> When presented with a claim. according to you one must either accept it
>>>> immediately or reject it immediately, one cannot withhold judgement on
>>>> it until one knows more about it and has enough opportunity to verify or
>>>> falsify what has been claimed.
>>>>
>>>> That is not how the world works.
>>>>
>>>> Nor how atheists work.
>>>
>>> That has nothing to do with atheists. That's agnostic.
>>
>> You do not get to define my vocabulary. When I use a word, it means what
>> I intend it to mean, not what your ignorance lead you to think it should
>> mean. And dictionaries written by theists don't count!
>>>
>>> Still, even if you neither accept nor reject the theist claim, you still
>>> have your own belief as an agnostic.
>>
>> As an agnostic I have no beliefs at all, at none least relevant to
>> whether any gods exist.
>>
>> For you to claim otherwise is a form of arrogance, assumption of what
>> would be godly prerogative if there are any gods, that, again, if there
>> are any gods they will surely punish.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it is how you work, you must have bought a lot of gold bricks that
>>>> turned out to be mostly lead and failed to buy the real gold bricks.
>
>I have nothing else to say if you insist to be illogical.

He's one of the kiddies ruining the discussion groups.

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 6:26:58 AM12/20/12
to
Obviously, nothing you can imagine.

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 6:34:34 AM12/20/12
to
On 12/20/2012 06:00 AM, Alan Ferris wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:09:31 +0800, niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Sounds as if that God, the one of the Bible,
>>> which is commonly called, God, by those who
>>> use the term, God, is not the God you speak of.
>>
>> There is only one God. Because of that, there is also the devil
>> pretending to be God, the deceiver that has deceived the nations from
>> the beginning.
>
> So how do you know you have chosen the right one.

I know because I didn't choose him. He chose me. However, it would took
me another 10 years to know about the Devil pretending to be God.




Would not a god be about
> truth and honesty and not about denying truth and hiding from reality? If your
> spirituality had been more honest and willing to learn I would have respected
> your right to believe what you want. However you have repeat idly shown the
> opposite. How do you explain that?

duke

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 7:46:16 AM12/20/12
to
They have to be godless atheists to do that, people just like you.

duke

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 7:47:29 AM12/20/12
to
Personally I wouldn't know.

duke

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 7:57:53 AM12/20/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:57:59 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:53:34 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Yep, you're stuck.
>>>Nope.
>>
>>>>>When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still in the
>>>>>sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the fishes, as a
>>>>>few examples
>>
>>>>1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a regional flood.
>>
>>>The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
>>>certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
>>>involved.
>>
>>Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of the bible not
>>scientific.

>Yet, you can't explain how one is to determine which parts of the
>Bible are not scientific and can safely be ignored and which parts
>must be taken as written.

That's simple. None can be ignored because everything in the bible is valid for
teaching. Not everything is a literal truth, like parables for instance. But
they are extremely valuable for teaching.

>You tried to invoke logic and reason as a tool for making such a
>determination, but, of course, that crashed and burned because one
>can't use logic and reason to apprehend a universe in which miracles
>are possible.

I am your master. And miracles exist in the mind of the beholder. God alone
can perform miracles, like the creation of the universe. And all of God's
miracles are good as God is all love.

>You invoked logic and reason to explain how you knew which parts of
>the Bible aren't scientific.
>I just pointed out the flaws in your method.

Parables are not scientific truth. Even old goat herders understood that where
you can't.

>>>>2. Everything got dark at 3pm. Maybe people thought is was another day.
>>>Maybe?
>>>Maybe???
>>Maybe.
>>>In other words, you're -making shit up-, Dook.
>>No, it's in the bible.

>The event is in the Bible.

Now you understand.

>>>>3. The Eucharist is spiritual nourishment which remains under the visual, taste
>>>>and texture of the substance of bread and wine.
>>>You're -making shit up- again, Dook.
>>>The above is not from the Bible.
>>Sure it is.
>No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. That just goes to show you how challenged you are.

>>>>4. Maybe Jesus got the other people to offer up their own food supplies.
>>>That's not what the Bible claims.
>>>The Bible claims that there was a -miracle- involved.
>>That's very possible.

>Well, then we're back to my point concerning miracles and using logic
>and reason to understand the universe.

God alone can offer up a miracle. He did so in the big bang. I'll leave the
rest for you to come up with.

duke

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 7:58:53 AM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:21:39 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>"Linuxgal" <tere...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>news:-96dnRvwbN-F-0_N...@giganews.com
>> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:53:34 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep, you're stuck.
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand
>>>>>>>>>>> still in the sky, transmuting water into wine and the
>>>>>>>>>>> miracle of the fishes, as a few examples
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a
>>>>>>>>> regional flood.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree
>>>>>>> of certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a
>>>>>>> miracle involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of
>>>>> the bible not scientific.
>>> Yet, you can't explain how one is to determine which parts of the
>>> Bible are not scientific and can safely be ignored and which parts
>>> must be taken as written.
>>
>> It's fairly simple, actually. There are no parts of the Bible which
>> are scientific.
>>
>
>Exactly.

You and lg make a cute couple - Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass.

duke

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 7:59:46 AM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:10:18 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:8q64d8dm66c73hm5c...@4ax.com
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:48:39 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:s0l1d8hcboef0u9ug...@4ax.com
>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:45:33 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1u7uc8lql7m46jqpu...@4ax.com
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:50:36 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:12:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:00:06 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> God willed the universe into existence.
>>>>>>>>> Logic and reason cannot lead one to that conclusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Logic and reason is the only viable answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logic and reason can not provide any answers in a universe where
>>>>>>> an omnipotent being can suspend natural law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God started natural law. Why would he suspend it?
>>>>
>>>>> To produce mirracles?
>>>>
>>>>> To raise the dead, including Christ's resurection?
>>>>> To heal the sick?
>>>>> To part the red sea? Etc, etc.
>>>>> Well maybe none of those happened.
>>
>>>> Jesus was a man. He couldn't do those things himself.
>>
>>> The Catholic church maintains that Jesus was both God and man.
>>> And Jesus said the Father and I are one.
>>
>> And the Bible and the CC both acknowledge that Jesus emptied himself
>> of his divinity so that he could live fully like a man so he could
>> find out what it was to be flesh.

>Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus "emptied himself of his divinity"?
>I think you made that up. He performed miracles and showed wisdom way
>beyond his means.

Phil 2.

duke

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 8:00:41 AM12/20/12
to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:58:56 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:56:00 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:04:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:19:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:54:50 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Jesus assigned St Peter as the first pope in 32AD. Pope Benedict 16 is not
>>>>>>#266. About midway, the EOC checked out. Logic and reason do you in again.
>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>You don't get to decide who left the Church, Dook.
>>>>>The EOC says the Pope left when he became a heretic and started his
>>>>>own religion.
>>>>
>>>>Words of the mentally deficient.
>>>
>>>Surrender noted, Dook.
>>>
>>>I win.
>>
>>Don't forget to flush the toilet.

>I don't want to flush.
>I'd rather keep you around, Dook.

I appreciate that. I so enjoy kicking your dumb butt.

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 8:02:02 AM12/20/12
to
On 12/20/2012 06:39 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <kasm53$kql$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/19/2012 12:02 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>> In article <kapk1t$tf1$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
> If only that were true.
>

Actually, I'm quite surprised and absolutely excited by the fact that
not only atheism has given up its traditional position of rejecting God
by modifying its definition to be nothing but a mere lack of belief, it
has also stopped calling itself a belief.

Let the logic be damned, there are people to be saved.

I think I really should congratulate you guys for coming out on the
bright side!

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 8:10:04 AM12/20/12
to
That would be a sure thing to get himself ignored.

Hannele

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 8:13:22 AM12/20/12
to
Be fair, he might not have been smoking anything: fasting may induce
hallucinations as well.
But, talking about pictures, didn't we have a poster some time ago who
claimed to have seen a picture of his god? Could that have been niunian,
under another nym?


--
Hannele, A.A #2211

There are at least as many gods as there are believers.

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 8:46:55 AM12/20/12
to
On 12/18/2012 03:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <kap1e7$d6o$7...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:02:42 -0600 Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:06:28 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:11:58 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:04:26 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A personal spiritual experience is an experience in life which is
>>>>>> having to do with the spirit who lives in our heart. It has nothing to
>>>>>> with magic, but it is always a thousand times better than any magic.
>>>>>> It changes your life for the better. It saves your life from utter
>>>>>> danger. It makes you a real human being with nothing to fear and
>>>>>> nothing to worry about. It brings you so many wonderful things in life
>>>>>> that you would have never dreamed of. It opens your eyes to the
>>>>>> kingdom of God...
>>>>>
>>>>> So list some of these wonderful things that have been brought to you.
>>>>
>>>> Truth, Love, compassion, peace, happiness, existence, justice,
>>>> intelligence, wisdom,...
>>>
>>> Show us the evidence that your god had something to do with it.
>>
>> God is the source of all those things. But the evidence is something you
>> have to find out yourself. Once you have found God, you will know it all
>> by yourself.
>
> In other words, you have no evidence.

I do have evidence, but that evidence is personal. It's not for your
eyes, and it is no use to you. You have to find your own evidence for
yourself.

>
> So why should we believe what you say? This is a serious question--WHY
> should we believe a word you say?
>

Even if you believe what I said, without having any actual spiritual
practice yourself, it means nothing and will remain as nothing.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 9:15:32 AM12/20/12
to
niunian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> ... let me see if I can ask in a different way.
>>
>> How do you know it was God?
>>
>> By what means do you or did you
>> ascertain what you call God to be God?
>
>I didn't know he was God at the time. I was amazed beyond words but I
>had no idea what was happening to me. I thought during my meditation I
>was able to meet some ancient Taoist master who was still alive and was
>living somewhere in the mountains. It was what happened about a week
>after that gave me the proof who he was. About a week after, out of pure
>coincidence, I was shown a picture of him and was told who he was.

The picture was of Jesus?

> From there, everything else started.

Most excellent indeed.

I had read of Babaji at times.
Probably in Yogananda's autobiography.

Wanting to meet the guru's guru,
eventually I saw a picture of him
on the wall in associate's home.

That was cool.

I have had many remarkable experiences
confirming lots and lots of my understandings.

They're not science however.

Any evidence would be anecdotal.

>> You are very fortunate.
>>
>
>Yes. It humbles me to this day and it's going to last to the end of me.

At times it is difficult for faith to be shaken.
At times impossible.

Hopefully yours will never be strained
beyond its capacity to endure or absorb.

Such is not the case for many, if not most,
of those who are called to a path consisting of
ever increasing faith.

Each individual has a unique path.
On some, God is encountered.
For others, they see things other-wise.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 9:21:03 AM12/20/12
to
niunian wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
>> niunian wrote:
>>
>>> ... during my meditation ...
>>
>> What were you smoking?
>>
>
>Obviously, nothing you can imagine.

Meditation can alter brain chemistry.

That much can be verified by science.

Synchronicities occur.
Events do coincide.

Science can articulate facts
and formulate theories based on shared,
repeatable experimental evidence.

Meanings derived from personal experience,
which are so astonishing and unusual
as to blow the mind out of the water
tend to be transformative by nature.

It isn't science.

It's simply how things are.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 9:31:16 AM12/20/12
to
Linuxgal wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Linuxgal wrote:
>>> >Virgil wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >>Since there is no more evidence of any hell than of any heaven for of
>>>> >>any gods, you are saying that zero is a million times larger than zero,
>>>> >>which even purely mathematically is false.
>>> >
>>> >It's not even false, it's simply not allowed. You can't use zero as a
>>> >denominator.
>
>> I thought he was multiplying,
>> like a Bizarro Occam.
>>
>> With division,
>> with zero in the denominator
>> the quotient is undefined.
>>
>> As I understand it,
>> this is due to the possibility
>> of it being anything.
>
>If you can divide by zero, then you can prove 2 = 1
>
> a = x [true for some a's and x's]
> a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
> 2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
> 2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
>2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
>2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
> 2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]

Excellent proof. Thanks.

When two are one
the couple is undivided.

Nothing divides them.
Nothing is what provides them.
As with a bowl or a door or a window,
it's the space between them that make them whole.

Being full of emptiness,
there is more than enuf room for love.

Their hearts are open to each other.

There is nothing to it.

Trying to prove it
requires a type of je n'est ce pas.

A form of Wu in a way.

Universals can be more than just a studio
apartment above the folk's house.

They can be akin to marriages
made in a realm far far
beyond the within within.

When one is lucky enough
or when it's in the cards.

Stars may decide
who get to play co-stars.

At times they share top billing.

At times they work for free.

At times the plays are not work.

On stages and off.

In the wings.

niunian

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 9:31:59 AM12/20/12
to
On 12/19/2012 07:04 AM, James Burns wrote:
> niunian wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:03:51 -0700 Virgil wrote:
>
>>> How can we tell whether that alleged spirit that you alleged
>>> is living in your heart is not an evil one in drag?
>>
>> Because it's the heart. There can be no evil heart. The heart
>> is always good because that's where the spirit of God lives.
>
> I cannot find the words to express how intensely I disagree with this.
>
> Have you ever heard the expression "The road to Hell is paved
> with good intentions"? Even if you *intend* to do good (which
> not all people do), you can do great evil.

That is very true. However, good intentions belong to the egotistical
mind. They are based on the emotions of mind. They have nothing to do
with the heart.

>
> You have the responsibility to use *all* of your abilities,
> your mind as well as your heart, to find the correct thing to do.
> And, even then, you (anyone) should be humble about the possibility
> of you just being wrong.

Correct. I think that is a very good attitude.

>
> I pity your neighbors. Is your heart going to tell you to
> poison them all some night? You don't think so, but some of
> the worst atrocities in history have been committed by
> people who thought they had good hearts.

They only thought they had good hearts, but people with good hearts
would never be able to commit any crimes let alone atrocities. A person
would have to kill his own good heart before he can kill anyone else.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 9:39:47 AM12/20/12
to
niunian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> niunian wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>>> Linuxgal wrote:
>>>>>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Linuxgal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> uncited quoted:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 Kings 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [23] And [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was
>>>>>>>>>>> going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go
>>>>>>>>>>> up, thou bald head.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [24] And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the
>>>>>>>>>>> name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By that description, you should know what kind of god this LORD is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Basically the Sandy Hook killer, deified.
>>>>>>>
>>
>> When you use the term, God, it denotes,
>> that is to say, points directly to,
>> is defined as being, the God of the Bible.
>>
>> The same LORD that killed all the kids.
>>
>> Are you suggesting, in your view, God,
>> the God of the Bible, is the devil?
>
>Yes.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

To avoid confusion,
if you would like to avoid confusion,
you might use a different term than God.

Maybe Brahma
or a Celestial Deity.

Hang on while eye dew a quick google.

Yuqing might be an excellent choice.

Possibly Yuanshi Tianzun.

Also, The Jade Pure one
would be sufficient.

Shangqing could do the trick.

Lots to choose from
in order to eliminate confusion
with the God of the Bible.

Especially since you think that God,
the God of the Bible, is actually the devil.

Arcane might be a science.
Especially when using cinnabar.

Free Lunch

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 9:44:46 AM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:47:29 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
Yet another lie from Duke.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 10:19:14 AM12/20/12
to
niunian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> To suppose the author of the definition
>> "simply imagines that by rejecting other beliefs,
>> he or she would be left with no belief,"
>> sounds much akin to an assertion.
>>
>> It is probably incorrect.
>>
>> It could be incorrect
>> if the author of the definition
>> is simply making an assertion, axiomatically;
>> such that atheism is defined, in the broad sense, means
>> "... the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."
>>
>> That would be a building block.
>> A foundation stone. A given.
>> Accepted without question.
>>
>> No imagination necessary.
>>
>> So it is totally wrong.
>> But for the wrong reasons.
>
>Now I think I have finally figured it out. I have been debating with a
>bunch of agnostics about atheist belief.

Why you would want to debate with anyone
about your own personal experiences
and what they mean to you
can be mysterious.

Your biggest difficulties have arisen
due to your choice of words.

You appear to be wanting words,
such as, for instance, God, to mean
whatever you want them to mean.

And you don't appear to appreciate
that a word, such as God, already has
its own meaning in use.

It has its own inertia.

To say God is the devil
is to say a very strange thing.

Yet that is what you have said.

To say there is only one God,
except that the God of the Bible
is the devil, can be a strange thing
for somebody to say.

And yet, that is what you have said.

You also are debating about apples
in a grove full of orange eaters.

They ask you for scientific evidence
but the only evidence you have is anecdotal.

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.

You do not appear to understand
nor to appreciate the differences in meaning
between various different terminologies.

> They certain don't believe
>atheism, and they are too shy to declare their own belief which is
>agnosticism, so they just want to denounce atheism to be any kind of belief.
>
>According to dictionary,

A dictionary.

The one you choose to use.

> atheism is clearly a rejection of any god
>belief, but somehow, on the web pages, it's been changed into a lack of
>belief in the existence of god.

A medical dictionary may have definitions
far different from those found in a thesaurus.

People are free to use any dictionary they please.

Whether or not it is of any use
can be determined by what it is used for
and how effective it is in that particular usage.

> Is this some kind of intellectual trick
>to save atheism from the coming judgment day?

Not at all.

It is simply your refusal
to accept that words can have meanings
other than the ones you choose for them to have.

> does it mean the author of
>the definition already knows the existence of God in the back of his or
>her mind?

The author of the definition
has something in mind.

Whether that is the same thing
or something different that is in your mind
can make all the difference in communication.

> I wouldn't know.

Yes.

>At least, it appears atheism is moving away from its traditional
>position which is rejecting any God beliefs.

How traditional that is
might be an interesting topic.

What is the tradition of atheism?

Does atheism have a tradition?

Definitions, opinions, and beliefs
about that topic may very well vary.

> I think it should be a good sign.

Beginning with accepting a definition
can be the beginning of an understanding.

When two people can accept the same definition,
then the groundwork can be laid, upon which
a conversation or discussion can be built.

So far, that has not happened.

At least, not to speak of.

In so many words.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 10:23:36 AM12/20/12
to
Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:51:31 -0800, {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:48:42 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:40:10 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:10:05 +0000 Alan Ferris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:18:33 +0000 (UTC), niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>More than 20 plus years ago, I was chosen by God personally to believe
>>>>>>in him, follow him, and learn from him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where were you when he did this? Did he put his hand on your shoulder
>>>>> or call your name out and ask you to step forward? What does he look
>>>>> like. What did he specifically say to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested as it is not many people who have claimed to have been
>>>>> chosen personally by god.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, I think I have already given you too much personal information
>>>>over the internet. Yesterday, I wasn't entirely being myself. I need to
>>>>refocus to talk about God and his love & truth.
>>>
>>>Are you embarrassed by what you wrote? I can understand if you are. You
>>>really need to stop and think a bit more before you post.
>>>
>>>It is interesting you mention truth. You post seem very lacking in ti
>>>sometimes. Just because you are ignorant of something does not excuse
>>>you lying about a subject. Especially as you tend to keep repeating the
>>>error even after people try to correct you.
>>>
>>>I have no problem with you believing in god, what I do object to is when
>>>you post inaccurate claims about the world or other people.
>>
>> Maybe, sometimes, he thinks
>> that he is actually telling the truth.
>>
>> But then,
>> when he gets caught up in the words,
>> he tries to shift his position so it makes sense.
>>
>> But,
>> not being able to reconcile
>> what he asserted to begin with,
>> with what became apparent later,
>> he changes the subject.
>>
>> And when all else fails,
>> ad hominem.
>>
>> Logic?
>> Truth?
>> Honesty?
>>
>
>That's an almost complete and very accurate description of most of the
>theists we get here, on a.a. The only thing I'd add is that they _never_
>admit to any error on their part.
>
>We know them by their fruits.

I wonder if apples and oranges
will fall as far from the same tree.

And what the name of that tree would be.

Orpple?

Reminds me of Vorpal.

Totally brillig.

A snicker snack.

�RLMeasures

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 11:06:57 AM12/20/12
to
In article <esn4d8537gh4qqml7...@6ax.com>,
Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:53:34 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>Yep, you're stuck.
> >>Nope.
> >
> >>>>When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still in the
> >>>>sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the fishes, as a
> >>>>few examples
> >
> >>>1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a
regional flood.
> >
> >>The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
> >>certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
> >>involved.
> >
> >Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of the
bible not
> >scientific.
>
> Yet, you can't explain how one is to determine which parts of the
> Bible are not scientific and can safely be ignored and which parts
> must be taken as written.
> ...


� Duke for damn sure goes by what RC holy men tell him the Bible really
and truly means. IOW:
"In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
(page 77, *A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion*, Fr. Joseph De
Harbe, S.J.. 1889)

kamerm

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 11:19:50 AM12/20/12
to
niunian wrote:
...
> According to dictionary, atheism is clearly a rejection of any god
> belief, but somehow, on the web pages, it's been changed into a lack
> of belief in the existence of god. Is this some kind of intellectual
> trick
...

suggest using
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism?q=atheism
the Oxford English Dictionary is the closest thing to the final arbiter of
conventional English word meanings that can be found in printed form
(WordNet and other knowledge bases go further, but are intended for machine
consumption). If you've never seem an OED, it's an encyclopedia set, where
the next most serious offering - Webster's Unabridged is simply a fat tome.

Reason this matters, is the multi-volume format of the OED allows many
shadings of meaning-in-context to be captured. Also, the intended audience
of the OED is post-collegiate, while the audience of Websters Unabridged
(and similar online) is late high-school.

This does't make the OED the final arbiter of English - unlike French, there
is none. However, it's the best place to start.

that said, OED on atheism:

"Definition of atheism
noun
[mass noun]
a.. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin:
late 16th century: from French ath�isme, from Greek atheos, from a-
'without' + theos 'god' "



note how there's an "or"? -- disbelief OR (emphasis added) lack of belief?



in any case, don't think that's what you're here for. Think you're here to
test the strength of your belief in the very teeth of the "infidel".
Correct?



-k


Jeanne Douglas

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:15:30 PM12/20/12
to
In article <kav28e$ns4$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
No need to read past this whopper if a kue,

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

Jeanne Douglas

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:18:48 PM12/20/12
to
In article <kav0k0$efd$3...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/18/2012 10:03 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
> > To suppose the author of the definition
> > "simply imagines that by rejecting other beliefs,
> > he or she would be left with no belief,"
> > sounds much akin to an assertion.
> >
> > It is probably incorrect.
> >
> > It could be incorrect
> > if the author of the definition
> > is simply making an assertion, axiomatically;
> > such that atheism is defined, in the broad sense, means
> > "... the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."
> >
> > That would be a building block.
> > A foundation stone. A given.
> > Accepted without question.
> >
> > No imagination necessary.
> >
> > So it is totally wrong.
> > But for the wrong reasons.
>
> Now I think I have finally figured it out. I have been debating with a
> bunch of agnostics about atheist belief. They certain don't believe
> atheism, and they are too shy to declare their own belief which is
> agnosticism, so they just want to denounce atheism to be any kind of belief.

You still haven't told us what it is we're supposed to believe in.

And agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism because agnosticism has
nothing to do with beliefs.


> According to dictionary, atheism is clearly a rejection of any god
> belief, but somehow, on the web pages, it's been changed into a lack of
> belief in the existence of god.

Care to provide URLs for these magical web pages.


> Is this some kind of intellectual trick
> to save atheism from the coming judgment day?

What coming judgment day?


> does it mean the author of
> the definition already knows the existence of God in the back of his or
> her mind? I wouldn't know.

But you continue to claim knowledge.


> At least, it appears atheism is moving away from its traditional
> position which is rejecting any God beliefs. I think it should be a good
> sign.

Since this has NEVER been atheism, how can atheism move away from it.

Jeanne Douglas

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:39:23 PM12/20/12
to
In article <kav7h3$n64$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/19/2012 07:04 AM, James Burns wrote:
> > niunian wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:03:51 -0700 Virgil wrote:
> >
> >>> How can we tell whether that alleged spirit that you alleged
> >>> is living in your heart is not an evil one in drag?
> >>
> >> Because it's the heart. There can be no evil heart. The heart
> >> is always good because that's where the spirit of God lives.
> >
> > I cannot find the words to express how intensely I disagree with this.
> >
> > Have you ever heard the expression "The road to Hell is paved
> > with good intentions"? Even if you *intend* to do good (which
> > not all people do), you can do great evil.
>
> That is very true. However, good intentions belong to the egotistical
> mind. They are based on the emotions of mind. They have nothing to do
> with the heart.

The heart is nothing but a pump that distributes blood to the body; it
has nothing to do with emotions or mind.

Jeanne Douglas

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:40:54 PM12/20/12
to
In article <kav4sj$6vs$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
Then, by definition, it is NOT evidence. Evidence must be verifiable.


> It's not for your
> eyes, and it is no use to you. You have to find your own evidence for
> yourself.
>
> >
> > So why should we believe what you say? This is a serious question--WHY
> > should we believe a word you say?
> >
>
> Even if you believe what I said, without having any actual spiritual
> practice yourself, it means nothing and will remain as nothing.

Convenient excuse.

Andrew W

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:43:53 PM12/20/12
to
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h826d8tbmkosk2d4j...@4ax.com
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:57:59 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:53:34 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yep, you're stuck.
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>> When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still
>>>>>> in the sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the
>>>>>> fishes, as a few examples
>>>
>>>>> 1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a
>>>>> regional flood.
>>>
>>>> The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
>>>> certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
>>>> involved.
>>>
>>> Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of
>>> the bible not scientific.
>
>> Yet, you can't explain how one is to determine which parts of the
>> Bible are not scientific and can safely be ignored and which parts
>> must be taken as written.
>
> That's simple. None can be ignored because everything in the bible
> is valid for teaching.
>

The B.S. parts should definitely not be used for teaching.
That's what's caused many of the problems in this world.

>
Not everything is a literal truth, like
> parables for instance. But they are extremely valuable for teaching.
>

Much of it is not.
The human teaching of fear etc. only leads to enslavement and control of
people, not learning.

>
>>>>> 4. Maybe Jesus got the other people to offer up their own food
>>>>> supplies.
>>>> That's not what the Bible claims.
>>>> The Bible claims that there was a -miracle- involved.
>>> That's very possible.
>
>> Well, then we're back to my point concerning miracles and using logic
>> and reason to understand the universe.
>
> God alone can offer up a miracle. He did so in the big bang. I'll
> leave the rest for you to come up with.
>

You pretend you know a lot but when questioned you just turn to bluster and
empty sweeping claims (and insults).


--
Religions breed hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Many Christians spend more time looking down on other people than up
towards Christ.


Andrew W

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:47:56 PM12/20/12
to
".RLMeasures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2012120...@10.0.1.3
> In article <esn4d8537gh4qqml7...@6ax.com>,
> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:53:34 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:39:16 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yep, you're stuck.
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>> When the great flood occurred, when he made the sun stand still
>>>>>> in the sky, transmuting water into wine and the miracle of the
>>>>>> fishes, as a few examples
>>>
>>>>> 1. We don't know if there was a great flood. Maybe it was a
> regional flood.
>>>
>>>> The Bible claims a global flood, and we know with a high degree of
>>>> certainty that no such flood occurred, unless there was a miracle
>>>> involved.
>>>
>>> Don't even need a miracle. The flood is revealed in a section of
>>> the bible not scientific.
>>
>> Yet, you can't explain how one is to determine which parts of the
>> Bible are not scientific and can safely be ignored and which parts
>> must be taken as written.
>> ...
>
>
> . Duke for damn sure goes by what RC holy men tell him the Bible
> really and truly means. IOW:
> "In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
> submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
> (page 77, *A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion*, Fr. Joseph De
> Harbe, S.J.. 1889)
>

The Bible and the RCC were made for people who don't like thinking for
themselves, and duke has made it clear he really loves that.
A true mind slave.

Andrew W

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:56:12 PM12/20/12
to
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ms26d85nh1qf48i20...@4ax.com
Phil 2 contains only worshipful human faith statements.
Read it again. This time with your brain turned on.

Example:
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father.

{:-])))

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 4:01:19 PM12/20/12
to
It's almost as if you were a physician
and you healed not only yourself
but even the little old lady
who didn't want to cross the street!

Virgil

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 4:37:46 PM12/20/12
to
In article <kav0js$efd$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/20/2012 02:31 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <kau739$kpf$1...@dont-email.me>, niunian <niu...@ymail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/19/2012 11:10 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
> >>> niunian wrote:
> >>>> {:-]))) wrote:
> >>>>> niunian wrote:
> >>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You have personally invented your god.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not true. I was found by God.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you know this to be true?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aside from your own personal realization.
> >>>>> Aside from in your own personal spirit.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's my personal experience. It actually happened in my real life.
> >>>
> >>> I get that. I accept that.
> >>>
> >>> But, let me see if I can ask in a different way.
> >>>
> >>> How do you know it was God?
> >>>
> >>> By what means do you or did you
> >>> ascertain what you call God to be God?
> >>
> >> I didn't know he was God at the time. I was amazed beyond words but I
> >> had no idea what was happening to me. I thought during my meditation I
> >> was able to meet some ancient Taoist master who was still alive and was
> >> living somewhere in the mountains. It was what happened about a week
> >> after that gave me the proof who he was. About a week after, out of pure
> >> coincidence, I was shown a picture of him and was told who he was.
> >
> > What were you smoking?
> >
>
> Obviously, nothing you can imagine.

As I do no smoke at all, quite possibly, but it must have been something
pretty strong, possibly to strong for you.
--


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages