| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"metahuman" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2003 05:10:03 PM |
| Object: |
Arguing about religion is pointless |
Quote from a Xian.
[quote]
Why arguing over religion is pointless:
1) Disbelievers will only go on to try and counter everything the believers say with logic, whether
it is theoretical or proven. They will point out that there are too many consistent flaws with X and
X, etc.
2) Believers will not give up their faith to some guy on the internet who tries to prove them wrong.
They will always think of something like "Well God meant for there to be challenges to my faith" or
something similar. Their belief will not change and they will not convince the disbelievers without
consistent, powerful evidence that has no natural explanation.
Before you attempt to decipher this and counter-post, how many people in the past have gone "Heyyou
sound right, I think I'll give up my faith now"?
[/quote]
Opinions?
.
|
|
| User: "Crazyalec" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 12:49:01 AM |
|
|
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in message
news:2%93b.22157$Qy4.9624@fed1read05...
Quote from a Xian.
Of course it is. You don't argue about a con game.You expose it for what it
really is.Money and power.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
02 Sep 2003 02:56:12 AM |
|
|
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in message news:<2%93b.22157$Qy4.9624@fed1read05>...
Quote from a Xian.
[quote]
Why arguing over religion is pointless:
It's not pointless when theists continue to offend non-theists by
imposing their beliefs onto non-theists, and to tell non-theists that
they will go to hell and nonsense like that if they don't 'follow'
theism. I'm talking about christianity here. Some of the christian
teachings are good and I condone those teachings...but those teachings
aren't unique. For example, to treat people nicely is a automatically
generated rule so that people can get along with each other better.
The other thing is, I find it very important to argue to help people
think logically and coherently. I can understand that some people may
'want' to believe in some kind of 'higher entity' in order to help
themselves deal with major personal problems and troubles. That's
fine. But as long as they don't offend others by telling others that
they will go to hell, and crap like that if they don't believe in
their fairy tale.
1) Disbelievers will only go on to try and counter everything the believers say with logic, whether
There's no need 'go on' to 'try' counter theist beliefs with logic.
We've already succeeded long ago to prove that theist beliefs are
fatally flawed. I am talking the christian belief, which says that god
is a all-knowing, perfect designer and perfect planner. Immediately,
you know that such an entity designed and planned every single
mechanical movement all-knowingly BEFORE the product was even created
'physically'. Therefore the product (before it is even created
physically) never has free-will AT ANY STAGE. But theists believe they
have free-will, which draws a very fatal contradiction. It also means
that a all-knowing, perfect designing and perfect planning 'creator'
never has any need to physically create a product just to see what it
will do. The actions of the product are already fixed in advance of
it's physical creation, which means that the product's actions are
god's OWN actions, which therefore never needs to be judged.
2) Believers will not give up their faith to some guy on the internet who tries to prove them wrong.
That's because they're ignorant. But if they truly want to believe in
'god' in order to cope with serious problems they might have, then
that's fair enough, as long as they don't push their stuff onto others
to offend others.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
30 Aug 2003 10:03:43 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaiskv4gcsk85h04ula2qe9fhict4uqi0b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:10:03 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
Before you attempt to decipher this and counter-post, how many people in
the past have gone "Heyyou
sound right, I think I'll give up my faith now"?
This many on the group to date:
Whittling this list done to point out a possible
inconsistency:
1. Peter Kirby (aa # 16) (theist to atheist)
4. David 'Fish' Trout (aa # 623) (theist to strong atheist)
23. Ole I. Hougaard (aa # 1393) (agnostic to atheist)
47. XF-11 (Pantheist to weak atheist)
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
This list mentions "weak atheist", "strong atheist" and plain-old "atheist".
According to the common usage:
"weak atheist" is "doesn't believe in [the existence of]
God or gods".
"Strong atheist" is "believes there is no God or gods."
Plain-old "atheist" doesn't specific strong or weak but IS
one of those two, and not some third alternative.
Weak atheism is compatible with agnosticism. Therefore #23
may not actually be any sort of conversion at all. That is,
unless #23 converted specifically from agnostic to
"strong atheist".
And for #55 the last step from "agnostic atheist" to "atheist"
also isn't actually a step at all unless the conversion was
specifically from "agnostic atheist" to "strong atheist".
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
30 Aug 2003 09:08:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:03:43 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
<scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaiskv4gcsk85h04ula2qe9fhict4uqi0b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:10:03 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
Before you attempt to decipher this and counter-post, how many people in
the past have gone "Heyyou
sound right, I think I'll give up my faith now"?
This many on the group to date:
Whittling this list done to point out a possible
inconsistency:
1. Peter Kirby (aa # 16) (theist to atheist)
4. David 'Fish' Trout (aa # 623) (theist to strong atheist)
23. Ole I. Hougaard (aa # 1393) (agnostic to atheist)
47. XF-11 (Pantheist to weak atheist)
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
This list mentions "weak atheist", "strong atheist" and plain-old "atheist".
According to the common usage:
"weak atheist" is "doesn't believe in [the existence of]
God or gods".
"Strong atheist" is "believes there is no God or gods."
Plain-old "atheist" doesn't specific strong or weak but IS
one of those two, and not some third alternative.
Weak atheism is compatible with agnosticism. Therefore #23
may not actually be any sort of conversion at all. That is,
unless #23 converted specifically from agnostic to
"strong atheist".
And for #55 the last step from "agnostic atheist" to "atheist"
also isn't actually a step at all unless the conversion was
specifically from "agnostic atheist" to "strong atheist".
Hey, I just keep the list. The descriptions are provided by the
members themselves. You'd have to ask them what they meant by it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 12:01:47 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:33m2lvk8vr1cbhpti3cpvk4s09gvrd527o@4ax.com...
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
You can't be an agnostic and a theist. That just doesn't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 05:46:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:01:47 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:33m2lvk8vr1cbhpti3cpvk4s09gvrd527o@4ax.com...
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
You can't be an agnostic and a theist. That just doesn't work.
Yes you can. You can belive it but be honest enough to say you don't
know. Somebody here posted that most Catholic priests of his
acquaintence were actually agnostic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 08:00:42 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<8ak3lvcqhduoeg5pf52bv16d42jsv6hera@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:01:47 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:33m2lvk8vr1cbhpti3cpvk4s09gvrd527o@4ax.com...
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
You can't be an agnostic and a theist. That just doesn't work.
Yes you can. You can belive it but be honest enough to say you don't
know. Somebody here posted that most Catholic priests of his
acquaintence were actually agnostic.
I was talking to God yesterday, and He said He thought that most
atheists were only guessing. He knew the Truth, and they didn't. But
He didn't want to disillusion them, so He let them be.
It was those agnostic Catholic Priests who got Him riled, He said. He
wished that they would make up their minds, so that He knew where He
stood. Good staff are so hard to find these days, He said.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 04:25:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 5:46:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote
(in message <8ak3lvcqhduoeg5pf52bv16d42jsv6hera@4ax.com>):
From: Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:01:47 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:33m2lvk8vr1cbhpti3cpvk4s09gvrd527o@4ax.com...
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
You can't be an agnostic and a theist. That just doesn't work.
Yes you can. You can belive it but be honest enough to say you don't
know. Somebody here posted that most Catholic priests of his
acquaintence were actually agnostic.
Yup, most of them I have talked to over the years have stated exactly that,
that they believed in God but could not claim knowledge of God. They had
faith, but did not know.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
"God hates figs."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 12:49:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:01:47 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:33m2lvk8vr1cbhpti3cpvk4s09gvrd527o@4ax.com...
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
You can't be an agnostic and a theist. That just doesn't work.
Yes, you can. What part would you think doesn't work? Theism/atheism
is a statement about what one believes (which is not a subset of what
one claims to know, but the superset), while gnosticism/agnosticism is
a statement about what one claims to know.
At the risk of throwing a grenade into the group, I'll use the analogy
of OJ Simpson: I *believe*, based on the evidence, that OJ killed his
ex-wife, but I do not claim to *know* that he did so. Maybe racist
police did plant evidence. Maybe drug dealers really did have her
targeted. Maybe pigs will fly out of my *****. But the point is that I'm
saying "I *believe*, but don't *know*, that OJ killed his ex".
Of course, the final point is, substitute "there is a God" for "OJ
killed his ex", and you have an agnostic theist's position.
QED
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 10:52:20 PM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<3e23lvshbq445gnuhs771frrh3plt4huhn@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:01:47 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:33m2lvk8vr1cbhpti3cpvk4s09gvrd527o@4ax.com...
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
You can't be an agnostic and a theist. That just doesn't work.
Yes, you can. What part would you think doesn't work? Theism/atheism
is a statement about what one believes (which is not a subset of what
one claims to know, but the superset), while gnosticism/agnosticism is
a statement about what one claims to know.
At the risk of throwing a grenade into the group, I'll use the analogy
of OJ Simpson: I *believe*, based on the evidence, that OJ killed his
ex-wife, but I do not claim to *know* that he did so. Maybe racist
police did plant evidence. Maybe drug dealers really did have her
targeted. Maybe pigs will fly out of my *****. But the point is that I'm
saying "I *believe*, but don't *know*, that OJ killed his ex".
Of course, the final point is, substitute "there is a God" for "OJ
killed his ex", and you have an agnostic theist's position.
QED
You mean that there are Believers that Really Believe that there's a
god but are willing to wait until they die to see if they are right or
not?
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What about the thousands of Buddists that believe that Budda was
really a Hindu and never converted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 10:52:45 AM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2003 20:52:20 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
You mean that there are Believers that Really Believe that there's a
god but are willing to wait until they die to see if they are right or
not?
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What about the thousands of Buddists that believe that Budda was
really a Hindu and never converted.
WTF are you babbling about?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
01 Sep 2003 10:41:56 PM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<fd64lvg23qp5pb67iff791rp9a83212o53@4ax.com>...
On 31 Aug 2003 20:52:20 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
You mean that there are Believers that Really Believe that there's a
god but are willing to wait until they die to see if they are right or
not?
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What about the thousands of Buddists that believe that Budda was
really a Hindu and never converted.
WTF are you babbling about?
There are no such things as those.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
01 Sep 2003 11:17:58 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2003 20:41:56 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<fd64lvg23qp5pb67iff791rp9a83212o53@4ax.com>...
On 31 Aug 2003 20:52:20 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
You mean that there are Believers that Really Believe that there's a
god but are willing to wait until they die to see if they are right or
not?
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What about the thousands of Buddists that believe that Budda was
really a Hindu and never converted.
WTF are you babbling about?
There are no such things as those.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
02 Sep 2003 10:32:05 AM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<8f68lv8o9nnabo87forv4vilf2j0mj88jn@4ax.com>...
On 1 Sep 2003 20:41:56 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<fd64lvg23qp5pb67iff791rp9a83212o53@4ax.com>...
On 31 Aug 2003 20:52:20 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
You mean that there are Believers that Really Believe that there's a
god but are willing to wait until they die to see if they are right or
not?
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What about the thousands of Buddists that believe that Budda was
really a Hindu and never converted.
WTF are you babbling about?
There are no such things as those.
<plonk>
Typical of a bird brain, like a raven.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
02 Sep 2003 10:32:14 AM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<8f68lv8o9nnabo87forv4vilf2j0mj88jn@4ax.com>...
On 1 Sep 2003 20:41:56 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<fd64lvg23qp5pb67iff791rp9a83212o53@4ax.com>...
On 31 Aug 2003 20:52:20 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
You mean that there are Believers that Really Believe that there's a
god but are willing to wait until they die to see if they are right or
not?
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What about the thousands of Buddists that believe that Budda was
really a Hindu and never converted.
WTF are you babbling about?
There are no such things as those.
<plonk>
Typical of a bird brain, like a raven.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
02 Sep 2003 10:32:16 AM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<8f68lv8o9nnabo87forv4vilf2j0mj88jn@4ax.com>...
On 1 Sep 2003 20:41:56 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<fd64lvg23qp5pb67iff791rp9a83212o53@4ax.com>...
On 31 Aug 2003 20:52:20 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
You mean that there are Believers that Really Believe that there's a
god but are willing to wait until they die to see if they are right or
not?
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What about the thousands of Buddists that believe that Budda was
really a Hindu and never converted.
WTF are you babbling about?
There are no such things as those.
<plonk>
Typical of a bird brain, like a raven.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
01 Sep 2003 07:38:48 AM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2003 20:52:20 -0700, (J.R.) wrote:
You mean that there are Atheists that believe that there are no gods
and are willing to wait until they die to prove it?
What a remarkably stupid thing to say.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
31 Aug 2003 04:23:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 0:01:47 -0500, metahuman wrote
(in message <6jf4b.29494$Qy4.10505@fed1read05>):
From: "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:33m2lvk8vr1cbhpti3cpvk4s09gvrd527o@4ax.com...
55. Gorgo (aa # 1914) (christian->theist->deist->agnostic
theist->agnostic atheist->atheist).
You can't be an agnostic and a theist. That just doesn't work.
Tell that to Father Brenner, a Roman Catholic priest. He claimed to be an
agnostic/theist.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
"The space time you are trying to reach has been disconnected..." Stony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
27 Aug 2003 06:16:25 PM |
|
|
Of course it's pointless. Tennis is pointless, so is football, bowling,
badmitton, chess, Clue, Battleship, jacks, Trivial Pursuits, etc etc etc,
but it's fun. Bantering arguements back and forth over a topic neither
side is likely to give ground on is particularly pointless to the
participants, but keep in mind that besides serving as a way to keep your
brain cells stimulated (thus warding off Alzheimer's), it's fun (well, if
you do it right), and serves as an opportunity to educate bystanders who
haven't been exposed to a view contrary to fundamentalism.
And sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to make big bucks
off of atheism/unbeleif/doubt the way the Pope & etc have off of religion.
So it may be pointless, but it could be profitable some fine day . . .
--Tock
Interesting interpretations of those funny safety signs at:
http://houstonjusticenotwar.org/articles/terrorist_attack/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
27 Aug 2003 06:43:11 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:dZa3b.651$I75.443@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
And sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to make big bucks
off of atheism/unbeleif/doubt the way the Pope & etc have off of religion.
So it may be pointless, but it could be profitable some fine day . . .
That group is called the American Atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
27 Aug 2003 09:46:10 PM |
|
|
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in message
news:mmb3b.22616$Qy4.21666@fed1read05...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dZa3b.651$I75.443@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
And sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to make big
bucks
off of atheism/unbeleif/doubt the way the Pope & etc have off of
religion.
So it may be pointless, but it could be profitable some fine day . . .
That group is called the American Atheists.
Um, I'm talking about Really Big Bucks . . . $400 billion a year or so, all
of it tax-exempt, with tax-exempt buildings on the corner of every block.
Oh yah . . . I want a slice of that pie . . .
--Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
27 Aug 2003 10:34:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:46:10 +0000, tock wrote:
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in message
news:mmb3b.22616$Qy4.21666@fed1read05...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dZa3b.651$I75.443@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
And sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to make big
bucks
off of atheism/unbeleif/doubt the way the Pope & etc have off of
religion.
So it may be pointless, but it could be profitable some fine day . . .
That group is called the American Atheists.
Um, I'm talking about Really Big Bucks . . . $400 billion a year or so,
all of it tax-exempt, with tax-exempt buildings on the corner of every
block. Oh yah . . . I want a slice of that pie . . . --Tock
Ya think Ellen is hiding the other $399,999,999,000?
Bet she rolls around in it like Scrooge McDuck!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 01:16:34 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote
. . . . s n i p . . .
Um, I'm talking about Really Big Bucks . . . $400 billion a year or so,
all of it tax-exempt, with tax-exempt buildings on the corner of every
block. Oh yah . . . I want a slice of that pie . . . --Tock
Ya think Ellen is hiding the other $399,999,999,000?
Bet she rolls around in it like Scrooge McDuck!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Good question . . . I wonder what kind of a budget they're working on?
Or the other groups, the FFRF and etc . . .
--Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 06:39:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 06:16:34 +0000, tock wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote
. . . . s n i p . . .
Um, I'm talking about Really Big Bucks . . . $400 billion a year or
so, all of it tax-exempt, with tax-exempt buildings on the corner of
every block. Oh yah . . . I want a slice of that pie . . . --Tock
Ya think Ellen is hiding the other $399,999,999,000?
Bet she rolls around in it like Scrooge McDuck!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Good question . . . I wonder what kind of a budget they're working on? Or
the other groups, the FFRF and etc . . . --Tock
Well, as you know, after the EAC (which of course doesn't exist) having
successfully completed the hostile takeover of the Zionist conspiracy
(which is pure fiction of course) for the purpose of destroying Israel so
Jeebus won't have his landing pad (and once the Palestinians take over
again, we'll put the Anti-Deity Missile system in just in case he tries...
GPS guided surface to air iron chariots!) it was discovered we controlled
all the banks.
What a hoot that was!
Anywho, of course the EAC began to deposit billions in the coffers of any
and all atheistic/secular/humanistic organizations. Except the agnostics.
They're never sure where their checkbooks are...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 09:44:24 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2003.08.28.03.34.54.336278@eac.org>, Mark K. Bilbo says...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:46:10 +0000, tock wrote:
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in message
news:mmb3b.22616$Qy4.21666@fed1read05...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dZa3b.651$I75.443@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
And sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to make big
bucks
off of atheism/unbeleif/doubt the way the Pope & etc have off of
religion.
So it may be pointless, but it could be profitable some fine day . . .
That group is called the American Atheists.
Um, I'm talking about Really Big Bucks . . . $400 billion a year or so,
all of it tax-exempt, with tax-exempt buildings on the corner of every
block. Oh yah . . . I want a slice of that pie . . . --Tock
Ya think Ellen is hiding the other $399,999,999,000?
Bet she rolls around in it like Scrooge McDuck!
LOL! Nice reference! :)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 12:29:27 PM |
|
|
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in message news:<mmb3b.22616$Qy4.21666@fed1read05>...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:dZa3b.651$I75.443@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
And sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to make big bucks
off of atheism/unbeleif/doubt the way the Pope & etc have off of religion.
So it may be pointless, but it could be profitable some fine day . . .
That group is called the American Atheists.
Please don't stop there. Give us details. If AA is deceiving us we
want to know. If there is a scam going on, we'll all quit. I bet
however that you are simply lying. Or quoting Bill O'Reiley.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 03:44:24 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0308280929.2f51b38e@posting.google.com...
Please don't stop there. Give us details. If AA is deceiving us we
want to know. If there is a scam going on, we'll all quit. I bet
however that you are simply lying. Or quoting Bill O'Reiley.
I'm talking about the history of American Atheists. Perhaps they're a different organization now...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 06:45:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:44:24 -0700, wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0308280929.2f51b38e@posting.google.com...
Please don't stop there. Give us details. If AA is deceiving us we
want to know. If there is a scam going on, we'll all quit. I bet
however that you are simply lying. Or quoting Bill O'Reiley.
I'm talking about the history of American Atheists. Perhaps they're a
different organization now...
Okay. So tell those of us who are members (such as myself) about this
"history."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
28 Aug 2003 09:56:16 PM |
|
|
Google it.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.08.28.23.45.30.889923@eac.org...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:44:24 -0700, wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0308280929.2f51b38e@posting.google.com...
Please don't stop there. Give us details. If AA is deceiving us we
want to know. If there is a scam going on, we'll all quit. I bet
however that you are simply lying. Or quoting Bill O'Reiley.
I'm talking about the history of American Atheists. Perhaps they're a
different organization now...
Okay. So tell those of us who are members (such as myself) about this
"history."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Arguing about religion is pointless |
29 Aug 2003 03:12:42 PM |
|
|
What's your point?
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.08.29.13.24.36.51079@eac.org...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:56:16 -0700, wrote:
Google it.
That's not an answer. Google WHAT? You seem to be claiming to know some
specifics but aren't willing to even hint at what that might be.
As a *member of AA, Inc. I think I know enough to satisfy myself. Not to
mention that a broad, Google search would just turn up theist lies and
accusations. The kinds they *always hurled at MMOH and the organization.
I'm not particularly interested. MMOH was a flawed person. Deeply so in
many areas. On the other hand, that's like telling people the sky is blue.
We all *knew that. Long before the theists "discovered" it.
And if you're going to rattle on about the alleged way she squirreled
money away and had plans to run, well, like that's news. She was on the
paranoid side though, on the other hand, it wasn't much of an exaggeration
when they said she was the "most hated woman in America." Theists HATED
her. With a vengeance.
So was it paranoia or were they really "out to get her?"
I still haven't run across anything that bothers me much. Some quibbles
here and there, a few things I question. But nothing like an Enron or
Worldcom.
So, again, your point is?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
