Another atheist denounces Richard Dawkin's lies

[fasgnadh]

# Subject: Re: "Why does fasgnadh repost the same atheist lies?"

The answer is simple: To expose their dishonesty.

# From: Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.atheism.satire,
@ alt.agnosticism,alt.religion,alt.philosophy,aus.politics,
# uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.republicans
# Organization: Vurgil
# Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:32:02 -0600
# Message-ID: <Vurgil-123170....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>
#
# "It's very important to understand that these Gods
# came into being by an explicable scientific
# progression of incremental evolution."
#
# Read it all at and see that Dawkins lies.
#
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all


Virgil finally admits I was right, Dawkins has no proof that these
'atheist Gods' exist! ..he's a LIAR.


Vurgil's not the only atheist who is critical of the
militant atheist liars; Dawkins, Hitchin's, Warlord Steve, RavinOne,
Olrik, Les Hellowell, Trance Stupor, and all the other members of
BAAWA (Brutal Atheist Animals Without Agape):

---------

The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age recently
launched his new book "Religion for Atheists" and
no atheists are interested in talking about it,
including all the ones who eagerly embraced Dawkin's
even more enthusiastic endorsement of atheist Gods he claims
'came into being'(sic)

From his book Launch:

"A few years ago it struck me that there is a resource
that is a provider of Wisdom, and consolation,
and an ethical framework, and it's rather fascinating and
has dominated the mental landscape of human beings for thousands of years
I'm thinking, of course, of religion.

And the problem is, I'm an atheist."

Yes, that's certainly a problem for any atheist! B^D

or for anyone living in any of the atheist regimes they ran! B^[

"Not just a bit of an atheist, I really am an atheist."

You make it sound like you expect people not to believe atheists!

B^D

"So, this doesn't, in a way, make me an ideal cantidate to write
about religion, but at some point it did strike me that religions
cannot be, in the words of Christopher Hitchins, "the source of
the poison of everything", it's implausible, they've been around
for thousands of years, they reflect the collaborative intelligences
and sensitivities of millions of people and the idea that everything
to do with them is false and wicked just didn't start to stand up to
the scrutiny I applied to it, as I thought more about the subject.

So, that's really the fruit of my thinking"


That religion is really the source of so so many good and useful
contributions to civilisation that Hitchin's malicious lies just
don't stand up.. 8^o and as atheism is devoid of anything
worthwhile itself, it needs to STEAL some of the many great ideas
religion has to offer:


" my new book,Religion for Atheists is a deliberate attempt
to look at a number of areas where I believe that religions
have things to offer for non-believers"

Sure, Truth, Love, Compassion, Justice, Sincerity, Charity,
Mercy, Courage, Integrity..
all the virtues atheism lacks, and doesn't even understand, all
the spiritual values that atheists reject completely...


# From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.agnosticism
# Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:38:16 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<bfcf3a9d-9711-449a...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
#
# You can keep your spiritual values.
# I'll piss on them and pass on them.
#
# Budikka



" ..and perhaps believers know about these things already,
but for non-believers I wanted to look at that."

"It strikes me that at the moment the world is really divided into
believers and non-believers and the debate has become at times very
fierce, there are people, some of whom live in North Oxford who
have suggested not only that religion is unbelievable but also
that it's ridiculous, and that people who believe in anything are
simpletons, maniacs .. people who must be lectured at, to remove
the folly of their intellectual errors."


We all know the "person from North Oxford" he's criticising for
being such an arrogant, rabid demagogue with extreme views, is
Richard Dawkins B^]

"That's not really my approach, I think such an approach is sterile,
I don't think one makes progress"

True, Dawkins extreme militancy and all the money spent on Bus
ad lies to proselytise for new atheist converts never worked!

"It doesn't strike me that this is really a productive way
to go forward."

Mate, I have been telling the dimwitted Dawkinite Drones that
for YEARS now! But they are completely blind to reason! B^D

" How do you live a good life outside of a religious structure?

Well that's silly, when the good life you want to emulate
exists WITHIN that moral framework and claims that the SPIRITUAL
values are what brings life to the attempts at self-transformation!

It's like you want the Light from a lightbulb, using only
the physical MATTER, not invisible, electromagnetic ENERGY! B^D

It's been tried in EVERY atheist state and failed! B^]

How can these atheist 'thinkers' be so dumb?

"This is THE question facing modern society, and we haven't
necessarily answered it that well."

You atheists have NEVER answered it, B^D but the majority
religious societies that you want to emulate clearly have! B^]

"I think it's a legitimate question and my book is an
attempt to answer that question."

Sure, the hilarious part is that you think atheism needs
to copy religion ...because it HAS the answer already!!!!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!

Just what Dawkins, Bukakke, Vurgil and all the other
ex-atheist believers are trying to do! ;-)

Except, THEY are copying the BELIEFs in Supernatural Beings,
i.e. they are FABRICATING GODS to WORSHIP! (Just
like every atheist tyranny tried to do with political cultism ;-)

Whereas De Botton wants to steal the PRAXIS of religion: B^D

"My starting point is to say that we should learn to STEAL from
religions."

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!

Priceless! The starting point for Atheist 'philosophy' is
that having no ideas of their own the unoriginal atheists
need to pinch the ideas of the, more successful, religious!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA




"you know some people have accused me of advocating a
'pick and mix'approach to religions, and I say you know what?
you're absolutely right, that's completely what I'm doing,
a pick and mix approach.

Some people have said 'religion's are not a buffet, from which
you can go round choosing the best bits', and my answer is yes they are.
And that's precidsely what I'm doing. So i've taken my plate,
and I've gone round the different faiths, and I've done precisely that."

- Alain de Botton, Lanching his new Book, Religion for Atheists
The Wheeler Centre, Melbourne 19/3/2012


http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2012/03/19/3455152.htm

---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)



http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest


"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest

http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg

[dolf]

On Mar 30, 7:28 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> # Subject: Re: "Why does fasgnadh repost the same atheist lies?"
>
>     The answer is simple: To expose their dishonesty.
>
> # From: Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg>
> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.atheism.satire,
> @ alt.agnosticism,alt.religion,alt.philosophy,aus.politics,
> # uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.republicans
> # Organization: Vurgil
> # Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:32:02 -0600

> # Message-ID: <Vurgil-123170.22320217032...@bignews.usenetmonster.com>

> #
> # "It's very important to understand that these Gods
> # came into being by an  explicable scientific
> # progression of incremental evolution."
> #
> # Read it all at and see that Dawkins lies.

> #http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all

>
> Virgil finally admits I was right, Dawkins has no proof that these
> 'atheist Gods' exist!   ..he's a LIAR.
>
> Vurgil's not the only atheist who is critical of the
> militant atheist liars; Dawkins, Hitchin's, Warlord Steve, RavinOne,
> Olrik, Les Hellowell, Trance Stupor, and all the other members of
> BAAWA (Brutal Atheist Animals Without Agape):
>
> ---------
>
> The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age recently
> launched his new book "Religion for Atheists" and
> no atheists are interested in talking about it,
> including all the ones who eagerly embraced Dawkin's
> even more enthusiastic endorsement of atheist Gods he claims
> 'came into being'(sic)
>
>  From his book Launch:
>
> "A few years ago it struck me that there is a resource
> that is a provider of Wisdom, and consolation,
> and an ethical framework, and it's rather fascinating and
> has dominated the mental landscape of human beings for thousands of years
> I'm thinking, of course, of religion.
>
> And the problem is, I'm an atheist."

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) was perhaps the greatest philosopher of
the 20th century and we are challenged to comprehend how he could have
been a life-long Nazi. [McCumber 1999:1] From his inception in 1927
with his magnum opus: “Being and Time” he clearly established himself
as a foremost and important philosopher, but later betrayed his
philosophical contributions and finished up until his death in 1976 as
a contemptible apologist, first for Nazism and later for himself.

That his work on “Being and Time”, for all its achievements, is no
innocent piece of philosophy. Although some have argued that it may
not have directly encouraged Nazism, it clearly leaves Heidegger open
to such an accusation. For in “Being and Time”, intelligibility is
subject to the world: I can understand nothing that is not within the
horizons of my world. Escape from this world is achievable not through
critical reason but only in a mute and mystified “resolve”. [McCumber
1999:3]

Yet for much of the Western world, the difficulty of Heidegger's
thought was for many years held to be almost insuperable in the medium
of a foreign language, especially English. That this opinion is no
longer so widely held can be seen both from the rapidly increasing
number of translations of Heidegger's works and from the interest of a
growing readership. There are signs moreover, that as a preeminent
thinker of our age, Heidegger may be of interest to many who do not
claim to have a wide knowledge of traditional metaphysics or whose
concern with him may not be primarily philosophical at all.

Such readers have a certain advantage in bringing an open mind to a
new problem, but they also have special difficulties in grappling with
Heidegger. [King 2001:xviii]

However as Gadamer (1976) suggests when the layman wonders what
philosophy really is, he has the idea that philosophising means
defining, and taking responsibility for the need to define, the
concepts in which all men think as homo[ios] sapien[tal]. Since as a
rule we do not see this happen, we have helped ourselves by means of a
doctrine of implicit definition.

In reality, however, such a “doctrine” is a mere verbalism as is the
neologism starting with the German word: Dasein--which is not another
name for ‘consciousness’, ’subject’, or ‘human being’. Heidegger
introduces a vocabulary that challenges the reader [Stambaugh
2010:xviii]. To say nothing of the Hebrew word: Dashen {(#4 - Daleth;
#300 - Shin; #50 - Nun = #354 / #390 as H1878) specifically to anoint;
figuratively to satisfy; denominatively (from H1880 ) to remove (fat)
ashes (of sacrifices):—accept, anoint, take away the (receive) ashes
(from), make (wax) fat}. For to call a definition implicit obviously
means one finally comes to notice, on the basis of a number of
sentences that someone has spoken. And he or she was thinking
something unambiguous by means of using a concept. In this respect,
philosophers are no different from other men, for other men too are in
the habit of thinking definite things and avoiding contradictions. The
lay opinion appealed to here is in fact dominated by the doctrine that
universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding
reality as nominalistic tradition of recent centuries, in considering
linguistic reproduction as a kind of application of signs. It is
obvious that artificial signs need an organisation and arrangement
that excludes any ambiguity. Thus the demand arises that the
illusionary problems of “metaphysics” must be unmasked by establishing
the univocal use of language. [Gadamer 1971:125-126]

In his scheme to refresh philosophy, Heidegger, like Hegel
(1770-1831), draws upon the earthy roots of his language and dialect.
So a promising way of achieving this refreshment would be the exercise
of translating “Being and Time” into the Anglo-Saxon language. Or
perhaps into the Welsh or Gaelic idioms. Or for that matter, into
Hebrew with its association to the earliest Semitic tongue and most
probable origin of language. [King 2001:xv]

How then did Heidegger's publication in 1927 of “Being and Time”, and
in 1929 with his provocative book on Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason”
in his treatise on “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” or his 1939
lectures: “On the Essence of Language: The Metaphysics of Language and
Essencing of the Word” in relation to the German Lutheran theologian
and philosopher Johann Herder's 1772 treatise: “On the Origin of
Language”, lead to the German Reich policy on the genocidal
annihilation and nullification of Judaism as the absence of being?
Herder (1744-1803) was the progenitor of the volkgeist (“Spirit of the
people”) conception and had advanced a cultural superiority by the
injunction: “Spew out the ugly slime of the Seine. Speak German, O You
German.” Yet whilst he supported the French Revolution (1789–1799),
his anti-authoritarianism, anti-militarism, and borderless
humanitarianism values would generally have caused him to find the
subsequent acts of political domination, war and empire which make up
the vast bulk of these “great” deeds and events of history as not just
morally unedifying, but morally repugnant. [Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy 2007]

Heidegger was struggling to distance his thought from the prevailing
neo-Kantian tendency in German philosophical circles of the time, and
this resulted in a highly original interpretation of Kant (1724-1804).
From the standpoint of the development of Heidegger’s own endeavour,
his book: “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” is of pivotal
importance because it takes up and extends a number of themes
suggested in “Being and Time”, in particular the problem of how
Heidegger proposed to enact his “destruction” of the metaphysical
tradition and of what role his reading of Kant would play in that
project. It’s this problematic about Kant’s Categories as it relates
to Being in traditional metaphysics and the phenomenon of time which
accounts for what some have called the “violence” of Heidegger’s
interpretation as even he unequivocally acknowledged in the preface to
his 1950 edition. [Taft 1997:xii, xx]

Heidegger asks, “What is the human being?” If I speak, so therefore I
am. It is through and in the being, human language comes into being
and vice versa; in the coming into being of language the human being
“is” the human being. [Gregory 2004:87] How then was any one of Jewish
descent considered as less than human after the 7 November 1938
assassination of Ernst vom Rath, the third Secretary of the German
Embassy in Paris by his reputed 17yo homosexual companion, a German
born Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan. As the impetus for
Kristallnacht within days following and the beginning of the Final
Solution as Holocaust--Where was God? I do not desire to participate
in the attitude of silence as others have promulgated to this very
time, and neither do I consider subterfuge in the use of language as
the only applicable and acceptable answer to such questions: “Vous
êtes sur un site francophone. Yez la politesse et la correction de
vous exprimer en français.”

This then relates to a little anecdote about my activities as timely
actions over the siege in Toulouse, France on 21-23 March 2012 in
relation to the earlier massacre of three paratroopers (ethnic and
muslim), school children and a Jewish Rabbi by an Islamic extremist.
Whilst enjoying a walk, I made some appraisals of the most probable
cause of the event before it was disclosed as public news. In that the
7 murders which occurred as terrorist activity were in part being
attributed to abuses as starvation of Palestinian children due to an
inability by the menfolk to pursue their livelihoods because of a
confiscation of their tools of trade at border crossings in Israel.
And as a consequence of my comments, as actions of goodwill and regard
to European friends, I found my words as ideas (unity of being,
dignity and discrimination by the State versus the animalistic
behaviour of the perpetrators) being uttered from the mouths of the
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a Jewish Rabbi in Israel which
were subsequently reported on the news.

In querying the political motive of UNICEF workers in the street that
same day, I remarked that not even Kofi Annan would be able to take
the “King” of Syria (President Bashar al-Assad) out of my hands--and
indeed that is so today as Russia, China and America are all indebted
to my intellectual property associated to governance.

There was in response to my calculated statements as provocations made
towards the Republic of France (on alt.France) in their time of great
need, an attempt by some person (René Groumal) without any remorse or
apology, to falsely and slanderously characterise my public Internet
statements as being fascist or neo-nazi. I am categorically neither.
The source of my ideology as autonomic doctrines of unity, co-
operation, freedom and democracy are not derived from Adolf Hitler.
But that my prophet is Moses and therefore I am not anti-Semitic.

Governance (religion), angels and time, set in stone: Angel Solar
Watch (replica) 1582 CE Chartres Cathedral, France
anthropo- (comb. form)

- dolf
- http://www.grapple369.com/Being.html

[Errol]

On Mar 29, 10:28 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Virgil finally admits I was right, Dawkins has no proof that these
> 'atheist Gods' exist!   ..he's a LIAR.

atheist god?? yes I think if god actually existed, it might very well
be atheist
hehehehe

ewe catholic priest types make me laugh

ewe twist the meaning, of sentences by cutting and pasting and
call Virgil a LIAR (an upper case LIAR) ewe deliberately misquote
Dawkins and have the nerve to actually type out the word LIAR

That is how i know ewe are a catholic priest

[John Baker]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Errol <vs.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You really do need to get help for your obsession with female ovines.

[fasgnadh]

Dolt, 2 things:

- If you are going to plagiarise the work of others by quoting
it verbatim, it is required that your indicate the quoted text
(all of it) by putting it "in quotes, like this" and then provide
a proper citation, like this:

http://www.grapple369.com/Being.html

So that people can see where you are stealing ideas from to present as
your own.

When we go to that site it appears to be a Blog by you,
where you have plagiarised my introduction to de Botton's
ideas, without attribution, and then appear to be disputing
it with some irrelevant word salad stolen from some other
unattributed source.

WTF?


- It appears the only connection between my post and yours is
the notion of

'foremost atheist philosopher of our age' (Alain
de Botton) - my post

and "perhaps the greatest philosopher of the 20th
century" (Heidegger) - your plagiarism..

Do I really have to point out that the 20th century is PREVIOUS
century, and that we are living in the 21st.

Do try and keep up.. otherwise people will think you are a dolt.

PS, quoting a long text, particularly one you haven't read, let
alone understood, is a waste of everyone's time.. including
those of us familiar with Heidegger, ...but mostly yours..

<snip>

>
> - dolf
> - http://www.grapple369.com/Being.html

---------



The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age recently
launched his new book "Religion for Atheists" and
no atheists are interested in talking about it,
including all the ones who eagerly embraced Dawkin's
even more enthusiastic endorsement of atheist Gods he claims
'came into being'(sic)

From his book Launch:

"A few years ago it struck me that there is a resource
that is a provider of Wisdom, and consolation,
and an ethical framework, and it's rather fascinating and
has dominated the mental landscape of human beings for thousands of years
I'm thinking, of course, of religion.

And the problem is, I'm an atheist."

[fasgnadh]

Errol defends Dawkin's from Virgil's claim he a LIAR himself :

> On 30/03/2012 7:28 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
>>
>> # Subject: Re: "Why does fasgnadh repost the same atheist lies?"
>>
>> The answer is simple: To expose their dishonesty.
>>
>> # From: Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.atheism.satire,
>> @ alt.agnosticism,alt.religion,alt.philosophy,aus.politics,
>> # uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.republicans
>> # Organization: Vurgil
>> # Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:32:02 -0600
>> # Message-ID: <Vurgil-123170....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>
>> #
>> # "It's very important to understand that these Gods
>> # came into being by an explicable scientific
>> # progression of incremental evolution."
>> #
>> # Read it all at and see that Dawkins lies.
>>

>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all

>>
>>
>> Virgil finally admits I was right, Dawkins has no proof that these
>> 'atheist Gods' exist! ..he's a LIAR.
>
> atheist god?? yes

Oh, dear, there's another deluded atheist sheep being taken for a ride!

http://weedoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/sheep-on-motorbike.jpg

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

# From: Waldo Tunnel <waldo...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Rational Atheists: The list
# Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:15:25 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<c55d5209-ec21-4e4b...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
#
# On Feb 25, 12:28=A0pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
# > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:12:41 -0800 (PST), Waldo Tunnel
#
# >> Atheism should not require faith.
# >> But I see that here to some degree.
# >
# > How so?
#
# I see atheists here who hold their (non) belief like a religion, a
# dogma, never to be questioned or modified. It's sad.

Sad cases like Erroll, another atheist believer who defends
Dawkin's from Vurgils claim that he's a LIAR!

> I think

Errol, there is absolutely no evidence of that in your posts.

(BTW, if you hear the sounder of a zipper.. JUMP OFF THE BIKE! B^)

> if god actually existed, it might very well be atheist

And even after that realisation.. they would STILL be an atheist? 8^o


Sounds just like the rest of you.. impervious to reason!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAA

> hehehehe

Glad you can laugh, even when you are the joke! B^D

> ewe

...took my advise and became a WOOLLY JUMPER, eh!

Death before dishonour!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAA

I hear you were tickled pink as a choir boy;

> catholic priest types make me laugh

Most choir boys weren't as enthusiastic as you! B^[

> call Virgil a LIAR (an upper case LIAR)

I think everyone agrees with you on that one!
He is a notorious post forging scumbag.. but in this
case he's correct to call Dawkin's a liar!

> i know

[Fred Hall]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:31:04 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com>
wrote in <JEqer.5297$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>:

>To expose my dishonesty.

Looks like the godless atheists have kicked your ass, FuzzNutz

[snip screed]

--

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html

http://fnvw.databasix.com (awards descriptions and more)

[fasgnadh]

Kook Sucker Fred Hall tries for a job as post forger:

http://www.nikkipilkington.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/headUpArse.jpg

Worried about the pressure on his brain, Fred tried lodging
it somewhere else:

http://fourthandfifty.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wrestling.jpg

> Looks like the godless atheists

You can tell them apart from inside? 8^o

You must stick your head up them an awful lot!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAA

What else can you see, Fred?

> FuzzNutz

Sounds like you're not fully inserted!

[Fred Hall]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:13:30 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com>
wrote in <0ywer.5196$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>:

[snip screed]

>http://fourthandfifty.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wrestling.jpg

Anal obsession noted, FaghNutz

[Smiler]

I thought it was only Jeebus (and a few other perverts) that had that
obsession, as in: "Jesus loves ewe."

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

[fasgnadh]

On 4/04/2012 6:10 AM, Fred Hall wrote:

Why do you do it, Fred? You like the taste?

> Anal obsession

to each his own, I guess.

> noted

and someone took the photos for you to keep, how thoughtful.

[Fred Hall]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:25:40 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com>
wrote in <xT3fr.5364$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>:

[screed snipped]

>Why do you do it, Fred? You like the taste?

Evasion noted, faghNutz. Why won't you answer my question, coward?

Were those christians who slaughtered millions of their fellow
christians during the Thirty Years War atheists in disguise?

Your move, foamy coward.

[fasgnadh]

On 5/04/2012 8:37 AM, Fred Hall wrote:

>> Why do you do it, Fred? You like the taste?
>>

>> > Anal obsession
>>
>> to each his own, I guess.
>>
>>> noted
>>
>> and someone took the photos for you to keep, how thoughtful.
>>
>>>>> Looks like the godless atheists
>>>>
>>>> You can tell them apart from inside? 8^o
>>>>
>>>> You must stick your head up them an awful lot!
>>>>
>>>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAA
>>>>
>>>> What else can you see, Fred?
>>>>
>>>>> FuzzNutz
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like you're not fully inserted!
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vurgil's not the only atheist who is critical of the
>>>>>>>> militant atheist liars; Dawkins, Hitchin's, Warlord Steve, RavinOne,
>>>>>>>> Olrik, Les Hellowell, Trance Stupor, and all the other members of
>>>>>>>> BAAWA (Brutal Atheist Animals Without Agape):
>>>>

>

> [screed snipped]

Evasion noted

> Why won't you answer my question

It's not my job to educate rude idiots.

Put your stupidity into your own thread, you clearly can't
respond intelligently to mine.

All you have to do is demonstrate that ANY religion in history
has killed more than 80,000,000, the conservative death toll
for the atheist regimes of the 20th century.

Well documented and unchallenged in alt.atheism.

Now, run along lightweight, and stop pretending to be a Christian
just to blacken their reputation, we already have enough atheist
frauds and imposters.. whose sockpuppet are you?