| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Portly Gent" |
| Date: |
29 May 2005 12:54:19 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism is eternal |
For every darkness, there is a desire for light.
For every confusion, there is a will for clarity.
For every lie, there is a demand for truth.
For every oppression, there is the fight for liberty.
Thus for every religion, there is atheism.
-Portly Gent
.
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
29 May 2005 02:41:32 PM |
|
|
In the past and current world, theism is contingency: live life the way it
is lived around you / what is expected of you / being a 'good' ___ .
Atheism is braking loose of that. You might say a true revelation.
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
29 May 2005 03:56:46 PM |
|
|
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> said:
In the past and current world, theism is contingency: live life the way it
is lived around you / what is expected of you / being a 'good' ___ .
Atheism is braking loose of that. You might say a true revelation.
Atheism dis-illusions.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
29 May 2005 04:28:36 PM |
|
|
Portly Gent wrote:
For every darkness, there is a desire for light.
For every confusion, there is a will for clarity.
For every lie, there is a demand for truth.
For every oppression, there is the fight for liberty.
Thus for every religion, there is atheism.
Non sequitor. Atheism defined as a lack [or void] of belief in the
gods, can therefore "prescribe no course of action then it can have no
consequences, either moral or practical (J. Balluch)." Anything that
has no practical or moral consequences, good or bad, can hardly be said
to exist. It is best described as a nonentity--along with ghosts,
goblins, pink unicorns, sky pixies, fairies and all such. Ergo, atheism
that has no practical effect on religion does not exist.
Denny
-Portly Gent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
29 May 2005 07:33:24 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Portly Gent wrote:
For every darkness, there is a desire for light.
For every confusion, there is a will for clarity.
For every lie, there is a demand for truth.
For every oppression, there is the fight for liberty.
Thus for every religion, there is atheism.
Non sequitor.
Silly twaddle.
The cure for a cancer is removal of the cancer.
The cure for the problems caused by religion is removal of religion.
Atheism defined as a lack [or void] of belief in the
gods, can therefore "prescribe no course of action then it can have no
consequences, either moral or practical (J. Balluch)."
Your copy-and-paste technique is not too bad. Now all we need to work on
are your reasoning skills.
Anything that
has no practical or moral consequences, good or bad, can hardly be said
to exist.
Unsupported assertion.
It is best described as a nonentity--along with ghosts,
goblins, pink unicorns, sky pixies, fairies and all such.
Straw man.
Ergo, atheism
that has no practical effect on religion does not exist.
You spend a lot of time slagging something that you claim does not
exist.
If there is any practical effect on religion then that effect is
prescribed by THEISTS, and not by atheism.
Regards,
Josef
The heart bowed down by weight of woe to weakest hope will cling.
-- Alfred Bunn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
29 May 2005 07:45:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:28:36 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote or quoted :
Atheism defined as a lack [or void] of belief in the
gods, can therefore "prescribe no course of action then it can have no
consequences, either moral or practical (J. Balluch)."
Yes but...
If you take away the magical illogical rules that come with religion
without other explanation that "God said so", you must fall back on
logic to decide the optimal behaviour.
You then have to by default guide your life by more rational concerns
such as preservation of the species or maximal enjoyment of your life.
Logic makes consensus easier. Decisions are based on observable
reality, not the pronouncements of conflicting long dead shamans.
--
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
02 Jun 2005 06:33:08 AM |
|
|
"Roedy Green" <look-on@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:faok91156uqnggsch291np530emal0sh9d@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:28:36 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote or quoted :
You then have to by default guide your life by more rational concerns
such as preservation of the species or maximal enjoyment of your life.
Jet Skis, SUVs, HumVees, oh my!
--
ArWeFantasies
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
29 May 2005 11:46:47 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
Portly Gent wrote:
For every darkness, there is a desire for light.
For every confusion, there is a will for clarity.
For every lie, there is a demand for truth.
For every oppression, there is the fight for liberty.
Thus for every religion, there is atheism.
Non sequitor. Atheism defined as a lack [or void] of belief in the
gods, can therefore "prescribe no course of action then it can have no
consequences, either moral or practical (J. Balluch)." Anything that
has no practical or moral consequences, good or bad, can hardly be said
to exist. It is best described as a nonentity--along with ghosts,
goblins, pink unicorns, sky pixies, fairies and all such. Ergo, atheism
that has no practical effect on religion does not exist.
Denny
Nice try denny.
However ... we are trying to see **something** (reality,truth) and some
other thing (nonsense, lies, just-so-stories) is in the way. If this is
how things are then removing the some-other-thing - that is having a
complete absence of the some-other-thing between you are what you
*could* be percieving is a good thing.
Complete absences of useless junk can make other things more clearly
accessable/functional. A complete absence of bacteria in your blood
stream will tend to make you healthier, likewise a total absence of
cancer cells, a complete absence of Coaca Cola from your keyboard will
make it work better etc etc (insert your own example here).
Atheism is an *absence* of particular kinds of superstitious belief.
Atheist may hold on dearly to *other*
superstitions/misunderstandings/misconceptions but they have eliminated
at least one category of useless junk - and that puts them ahead.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
31 May 2005 07:52:32 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
Portly Gent wrote:
For every darkness, there is a desire for light.
For every confusion, there is a will for clarity.
For every lie, there is a demand for truth.
For every oppression, there is the fight for liberty.
Thus for every religion, there is atheism.
Non sequitor. Atheism defined as a lack [or void] of belief in the
gods, can therefore "prescribe no course of action then it can have no
consequences, either moral or practical (J. Balluch)." Anything that
has no practical or moral consequences, good or bad, can hardly be said
to exist. It is best described as a nonentity--along with ghosts,
goblins, pink unicorns, sky pixies, fairies and all such. Ergo, atheism
that has no practical effect on religion does not exist.
Denny
Nice try denny.
However ... we are trying to see **something** (reality,truth) and some
other thing (nonsense, lies, just-so-stories) is in the way. If this is
how things are then removing the some-other-thing - that is having a
complete absence of the some-other-thing between you are what you
*could* be percieving is a good thing.
Which, in effect, is a utilitarian effect/consequence. It is an act of
removing, clearing away what one considers to be an impediment.
Complete absences of useless junk can make other things more clearly
accessable/functional. A complete absence of bacteria in your blood
stream will tend to make you healthier, likewise a total absence of
cancer cells, a complete absence of Coaca Cola from your keyboard will
make it work better etc etc (insert your own example here).
Complete absence of useless junk results only when one takes a position
or an action necessary in order to remove it. One must first decide
what is junk and what is worth salvaging. Atheism has made the
determination that religion is junk, which has obvious practical
consequences in the real world.
Atheism is an *absence* of particular kinds of superstitious belief.
Atheist may hold on dearly to *other*
superstitions/misunderstandings/misconceptions but they have eliminated
at least one category of useless junk - and that puts them ahead.
But as you yourself point out, atheism does have very practical
consequences, it (a) "eliminates" religious belief and (b) puts the
atheist ahead of the man of faith. To define atheism as nothing more
than an *absence* of religious belief pure and simple strikes me as a
form of psychological denial. When one has so much invested in anything
(religion included), we are inclined to do everything we can to protect
it from detractors. My suspicion is that this secondary definition of
atheism as *absence* is an attempt to disassociate it from atheistic
communism and its horrors. Atheism was much more than an *absence* for
Stalin, it was a most effective tool to undermine the Church and bring
religion under control.
Denny
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
01 Jun 2005 02:59:48 AM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
Richo wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
Portly Gent wrote:
For every darkness, there is a desire for light.
For every confusion, there is a will for clarity.
For every lie, there is a demand for truth.
For every oppression, there is the fight for liberty.
Thus for every religion, there is atheism.
Non sequitor. Atheism defined as a lack [or void] of belief in the
gods, can therefore "prescribe no course of action then it can have no
consequences, either moral or practical (J. Balluch)." Anything that
has no practical or moral consequences, good or bad, can hardly be said
to exist. It is best described as a nonentity--along with ghosts,
go blins, pink unicorns, sky pixies, fairies and all such. Ergo, atheism
that has no practical effect on religion does not exist.
Denny
Nice try denny.
However ... we are trying to see **something** (reality,truth) and some
other thing (nonsense, lies, just-so-stories) is in the way. If this is
how things are then removing the some-other-thing - that is having a
complete absence of the some-other-thing between you are what you
*could* be percieving is a good t hing.
Which, in effect, is a utilitarian effect/consequence. It is an act of
removing, clearing away what one considers to be an impediment.
Complete absences of useless junk can make other things more clearly
accessable/functional. A complete absence of bacteria in your blood
stream will tend to make you healthier, likewise a total absence of
cancer cells, a complete absence of Coaca Cola from your keyboard will
make it work better etc etc (insert your own example here).
Complete absence of useless junk results only when one takes a position
or an action necessary in order to remove it. One must first decide
what is junk and what is worth salvaging. Atheism has made the
determination that religion is junk,
I don't think so.
which has obvious practical
consequences in the real world.
And not so practical ones too.
Atheism is an *absence* of particular kinds of superstitious belief.
Atheist may hold on dearly to *other*
superstitions/misunderstandings/misconceptions but they have eliminated
at least one category of useless junk - and that puts them ahead.
But as you yourself point out, atheism does have very practical
consequences, it (a) "eliminates" religious belief
I disagree with that. It may be that it "eliminates" beliefs in
religions, but not religious belief. You can have a religious
belief in many things including economic systems: like
communism, or even capitalism, I suppose, and still
not have a god-belief.
and (b) puts the
atheist ahead of the man of faith.
In what way.
To define atheism as nothing more
than an *absence* of religious belief pure and simple strikes me as a
form of psychological denial.
But that is the core meaning. The one thing all atheists can and
do have in common. Now I can keep up on the various reasons
to believe in a god and still find them wanting, and even argue
over if they are or not. I may do other things because I am an
atheist but that doesn't make these things part of the
definition of atheism.
When one has so much invested in anything
(religion included), we are inclined to do everything we can to protect
it from detractors.
Yes but it is not a valid criteria by which to evaluate the _argument_
such a person offers for his position.The argument is the thing, not
the one who delivers it.
My suspicion is that this secondary definition of
atheism as *absence* is an attempt to disassociate it from atheistic
communism and its horrors.
It might be, but that doesn't make the definition wrong. In other
words, whether it is a rationalization or not is irrelevant to
what the most accurate definition of atheism is.
Atheism was much more than an *absence* for
Stalin, it was a most effective tool to undermine the Church and bring
religion under control.
Mainly it just drove it underground which worked only as
long as the police state was putting the pressure on.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
01 Jun 2005 12:26:39 AM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
Richo wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
Portly Gent wrote:
For every darkness, there is a desire for light.
For every confusion, there is a will for clarity.
For every lie, there is a demand for truth.
For every oppression, there is the fight for liberty.
Thus for every religion, there is atheism.
Non sequitor. Atheism defined as a lack [or void] of belief in the
gods, can therefore "prescribe no course of action then it can have no
consequences, either moral or practical (J. Balluch)." Anything that
has no practical or moral consequences, good or bad, can hardly be said
to exist. It is best described as a nonentity--along with ghosts,
goblins, pink unicorns, sky pixies, fairies and all such. Ergo, atheism
that has no practical effect on religion does not exist.
Denny
Nice try denny.
However ... we are trying to see **something** (reality,truth) and some
other thing (nonsense, lies, just-so-stories) is in the way. If this is
how things are then removing the some-other-thing - that is having a
complete absence of the some-other-thing between you are what you
*could* be percieving is a good thing.
Which, in effect, is a utilitarian effect/consequence. It is an act of
removing, clearing away what one considers to be an impediment.
Complete absences of useless junk can make other things more clearly
accessable/functional. A complete absence of bacteria in your blood
stream will tend to make you healthier, likewise a total absence of
cancer cells, a complete absence of Coaca Cola from your keyboard will
make it work better etc etc (insert your own example here).
Complete absence of useless junk results only when one takes a position
or an action necessary in order to remove it. One must first decide
what is junk and what is worth salvaging. Atheism has made the
determination that religion is junk, which has obvious practical
consequences in the real world.
Yes of course.
For example, if you didnt believe in God then you would be less likely
to follow various dictates of priests and mulahs that purport to speak
for him.
So all the people that will die of AIDS in Africa because Poman
Catholic preists have said that using condoms is a sin would live
longer healtheir lives.
That is a real world consequence.
Atheism is an *absence* of particular kinds of superstitious belief.
Atheist may hold on dearly to *other*
superstitions/misunderstandings/misconceptions but they have eliminated
at least one category of useless junk - and that puts them ahead.
But as you yourself point out, atheism does have very practical
consequences, it (a) "eliminates" religious belief and (b) puts the
atheist ahead of the man of faith.
It's not so much that atheism eliminates (theistc)religion - a persons
doubts and thoughts and feelings can move them to question or doubt.
If they stop believing 9or never start believing in the first place)
then they will be atheist.
That is atheism isnt something you do or use or employ - its how you
are.
To define atheism as nothing more
than an *absence* of religious belief pure and simple strikes me as a
form of psychological denial. When one has so much invested in anything
(religion included), we are inclined to do everything we can to protect
it from detractors. My suspicion is that this secondary definition of
atheism as *absence* is an attempt to disassociate it from atheistic
communism and its horrors. Atheism was much more than an *absence* for
Stalin, it was a most effective tool to undermine the Church and bring
religion under control.
Denny
The reason why the "absence" definition is popular amongst atheists
isnt anything to do with Stalin.
Its an attempt to shift the perspective away from a god-centered way of
percieving and talking about the world -to try and make a "level
playing field".
The religious cannot see the world but through the filter of their
beliefs - hence atheists are seen as denying God - which only makes
sense if there is a God to deny.
So the "absence" idea is to try and force a change of perspective.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
01 Jun 2005 12:12:30 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
The religious cannot see the world but through the filter of their
beliefs - hence atheists are seen as denying God - which only makes
sense if there is a God to deny.
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mary Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
12 Jun 2005 04:49:48 AM |
|
|
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
So I take it from this post that you are able to prove that there is a god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
12 Jun 2005 05:04:11 AM |
|
|
Mary Walker wrote:
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
So I take it from this post that you are able to prove that there is a god.
No need. The claim is "god exists." The burden of proof is on you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
12 Jun 2005 07:12:57 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:vMTqe.470$1q5.54@trnddc02...
Mary Walker wrote:
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
So I take it from this post that you are able to prove that there is
a god.
No need. The claim is "god exists." The burden of proof is on you.
I proved it yesterday. I said, "God strike me down if what I say isn't
true!" Then I lied.
--
ArWeTemptingFate
OrGod
OrPeople'sPatience
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
12 Jun 2005 07:17:20 AM |
|
|
ArWeGod wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:vMTqe.470$1q5.54@trnddc02...
Mary Walker wrote:
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
So I take it from this post that you are able to prove that there is
a god.
No need. The claim is "god exists." The burden of proof is on you.
I proved it yesterday. I said, "God strike me down if what I say isn't
true!" Then I lied.
I proved it last Sunday, and the Sunday before that, and the Sunday
before that... for years.
I've asked God, every Saturday night, to write the words "I exist" on
the bellies of every man, woman, and child on the planet simultaneously,
and for the words to be written in each person's native tongue, and that
the words be written in bright red welts.
I asked God for this against last night. Today is Sunday. I just
checked. No welts. No "I exist." Nothing. Not so much as a pimple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
12 Jun 2005 08:12:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:49:48 +0100, "Mary Walker" <mw@mary.com> wrote:
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
So I take it from this post that you are able to prove that there is a god.
Don't be so stupid.
Learn to think.
"God" is part of the Christian's theistic paradigm.
All it is outside that is "somebody else's religious belief".
If you could think you realise that only a Christian sees their own
deity as something that could be denied.
But then you can't.
So you don't realise that our position wrt the deity of your religion
is little different that eg your position wrt Zeus, Mithras, Odin,
Vishnu, Osiris and all the others.
In short, it has no relevance to us other than a figure out of
somebody else's belief around which they wove myths.
Neither do you seem to grasp that rudely talking at people as though
its existence were mutually granted is like lecturing us about Santa
Claus' magic sleigh, etc.
Both stupid because you know we don't share your belief in Santa Claus
and rude because you don't care but do it anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
04 Jun 2005 08:31:51 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:12:30 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
The religious cannot see the world but through the filter of their
beliefs - hence atheists are seen as denying God - which only makes
sense if there is a God to deny.
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
Yeah, I agree.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
04 Jun 2005 09:49:13 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:12:30 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
The religious cannot see the world but through the filter of their
beliefs - hence atheists are seen as denying God - which only makes
sense if there is a God to deny.
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
Yeah, I agree.
Mark.
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
05 Jun 2005 06:34:47 AM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2005 07:49:13 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:12:30 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
The religious cannot see the world but through the filter of their
beliefs - hence atheists are seen as denying God - which only makes
sense if there is a God to deny.
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
Yeah, I agree.
Mark.
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
Well he hasnt shown himself to me.
So he doesnt want me to believe in him - so I would be a fool to
question his wisdom in making me an atheist.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
04 Jun 2005 12:16:02 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2005 07:49:13 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:12:30 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
The religious cannot see the world but through the filter of their
beliefs - hence atheists are seen as denying God - which only makes
sense if there is a God to deny.
This is amazingly stupid. There is no god to deny.
There are stupid claims about god to deny.
Yeah, I agree.
Mark.
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
04 Jun 2005 11:07:45 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has to follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
don't appear to be ever able to get past it.
Why should the passing of 2000 years have to result
in proof? Where did that 'law' come from?
Many, perhaps, don't understand that to find the
truth by faith is greater than to see all truth
passively by means of proofs. Faith is more like
the act of creation by the Creator than is mere
vision, and those who have a life of faith are
more like Him than those who merely see. One
might say that God so firmly 'believed' that the
creation would be that it was; and one might
similarly say that a believer, in a sense,
'creates' the discovered truth, because of
the absence of proof.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
05 Jun 2005 07:06:16 AM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has to follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
don't appear to be ever able to get past it.
No, liar, you merely have to put up or shut up, every time you beg the
question. Which you do every time you rudely presume it to those
outside your belief system.
You have been told several times that nobody would give a flying *****
about it if you kept it to yourself. After all, you know it's not
universally or even mutually granted.
And it is .
Why should the passing of 2000 years have to result
in proof? Where did that 'law' come from?
It demonstrates that you in-your-face rude morons have none.
Many, perhaps, don't understand that to find the
truth by faith is greater than to see all truth
Faith is an excuse to believe in the absence of any reason to do so.
And it is only "truth" in the brainwashed fantasies of believers who
have redefined the word.
Don't be so dishonest.
passively by means of proofs. Faith is more like
Then prove it objectively, moron, before pretending it is.
the act of creation by the Creator than is mere
What "act of creation" by what "Creator", moron?
vision, and those who have a life of faith are
more like Him than those who merely see. One
Don't be so dishonest, or so stupid.
might say that God so firmly 'believed' that the
More question-begging stupidity.
creation would be that it was; and one might
similarly say that a believer, in a sense,
'creates' the discovered truth, because of
the absence of proof.
What "truth", liar?
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
05 Jun 2005 10:13:03 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has t o follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
don't appear to be ever able to get past it.
No, liar, you merely have to put up or shut up, every time you beg the
questi on. Which you do every time you rudely presume it to those
outside your belief system.
You have been told several times that nobody would give a flying *****
about it if you kept it to yourself. After all, you know it's not
universally or even mutually granted.
Did you know you are posting to two religious newsgroups
or don't you not care?
And it is .
Why should the passing of 2000 years have to result
in proof? Where did that 'law' come from?
It demonstrates that you in-your-face rude morons have none.
Excuse me, but it is not rational to start with the name-calling
and then accuse your victim of rudeness. I dare say it is
hypocritical.
e
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
05 Jun 2005 12:53:48 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jun 2005 08:13:03 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has t o follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
Hint: thgat was an example of your lies about atheists.
don't appear to be ever able to get past it.
No, liar, you merely have to put up or shut up, every time you beg the
question. Which you do every time you rudely presume it to those
outside your belief system.
You have been told several times that nobody would give a flying *****
about it if you kept it to yourself. After all, you know it's not
universally or even mutually granted.
Did you know you are posting to two religious newsgroups
or don't you not care?
I'm replying to your own dishonesty, stupidity and lies about atheists
that you cross-posted to an atheist newsgroup.
You certainly dosn't care - you stupidly talk at us us athough your
beliefs were universally granted. And when it's pointed out that
they're not you lie about us.
Stop being a whining hypocrite.
And it is .
Why should the passing of 2000 years have to result
in proof? Where did that 'law' come from?
It demonstrates that you in-your-face rude morons have none.
Excuse me, but it is not rational to start with the name-calling
and then accuse your victim of rudeness. I dare say it is
hypocritical.
If you don't like being called a liar, an idiot or a hypocrite, don't
be those things.
The only hypocrite here is yourself: you lied about atheists, and you
rudely presumed to the same atheists that your pretend friend was a
given.
e
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
07 Jun 2005 04:12:33 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 08:13:03 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has t o follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
Hint: thgat was an example of your lies about atheists.
If you are addressing this to me then it is you who is
lying. Those aren't my words.
don't appear to be ever able to get past it.
No, liar, you merely have to put up or shut up, every time you beg the
question. Which you do every time you rudely presume it to those
outside your belief system.
You have been told several times that nobody would give a flying *****
about it if you kept it to yourself. After all, you know it's not
universally or even mutually granted.
Did you know you are posting to two religious newsgroups
or don't you care?
I'm replying to your own dishonesty, stupidity and lies about atheists
No you're not. This lie of yours is an example of your
own dishonesty and stupidity. You don't even know who
you are addressing and don't seem to care that you don't.
_That_ is stupidity.
that you cross-posted to an atheist newsgroup.
It was an atheist--"Portly Gent"-- who crossposted
this to Christian groups and you continue the cross
post, liar. Number three, I haven't said anything about
atheists, but rather about you. So again you lie.
Clean up your act, dufus.
You certainly dosn't care - you stupidly talk at us
Oh cut it out, fundy. You don't speak for me or other
atheists.
us athough your
beliefs were universally granted.
Got any evidence of this, fundy? No you do not. Ergo
this is your faith talking. In fact it is you who do what
you falsely accuse me of. Don't you have any ethics?
And when it's pointed out that
they're not you lie about us.
More accusations you can't back up? I'm not surprised.
You can't argue rationally and are totally oblivious about
who you are addressing. Are you on drugs or is there some
other reason why you can't get it through your head that
I'm not a believer? When you act irrationally like this
you make atheists look bad and I resent it. If you are
going to do this then please quit identifying yourself as
an atheist, and PLEASE stop pretending that you are
the spokesmodel for all atheists. You ain't. Of course if
you are a stealth fundy merely pretending to be an atheist
in order to make them look bad then you will ignore this.
Stop being a whining hypocrite.
It is you who is whining here. For example: "You certainly
dosn't [sic] care - you stupidly talk at us..." Likewise, it
is you who is the hypocrite: you whine about theists
crossposting when in fact it was an atheist who crossposted
this thread and you who continue it.
And it is .
Why should the passing of 2000 years hav e to result
in proof? Where did that 'law' come from?
It demonstrates that you in-your-face rude morons have none.
Excuse me, but it is not rational to start with the name-calling
and then accuse your victim of rudeness. I dare say it is
hypocritical.
If you don't like being called a liar,
You can't even address my point so you change the subject
instead. That should be a clue to you but it isn't. Hint: I'm not
talking about your brain-dead flames and pathological
lying at the moment. I'm talking about your irrational
name-calling and your hypocrisy in accusing someone of
doing what you, in fact, do. Can you comprehend this?
Hello??
I can back up my claims, and have done so. You can't do
the same, can you? Answer the question this time.
an idiot or a hypocrite, don't
be those things.
I'm not doing those things, liar. Why don't you show
otherwise? Can you support your burden of proof?
Silly question, of course you can't. So you just make
claims you can't back up, merely pretending they are
true, just like your typical fundy.
The only hypocrite here is yourself: you lied about atheists, and you
rudely presumed to the same atheists that your pretend friend was a
given.
The Hitlerian Big Lie. Please quit posting while wearing
your alleged atheism on your sleeve.You may not give
a ***** about how atheists appear to others but I and other
ethical atheists do. You are an embarrassment to us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
07 Jun 2005 04:12:47 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 08:13:03 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has t o follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
Hint: thgat was an example of your lies about atheists.
If you are addressing this to me then it is you who is
lying. Those aren't my words.
don't appear to be ever able to get past it.
No, liar, you merely have to put up or shut up, every time you beg the
question. Which you do every time you rudely presume it to those
outside your belief system.
You have been told several times that nobody would give a flying *****
about it if you kept it to yourself. After all, you know it's not
universally or even mutually granted.
Did you know you are posting to two religious newsgroups
or don't you care?
I'm replying to your own dishonesty, stupidity and lies about atheists
No you're not. This lie of yours is an example of your
own dishonesty and stupidity. You don't even know who
you are addressing and don't seem to care that you don't.
_That_ is stupidity.
that you cross-posted to an atheist newsgroup.
It was an atheist--"Portly Gent"-- who crossposted
this to Christian groups and you continue the cross
post, liar. Number three, I haven't said anything about
atheists, but rather about you. So again you lie.
Clean up your act, dufus.
You certainly dosn't care - you stupidly talk at us
Oh cut it out, fundy. You don't speak for me or other
atheists.
us athough your
beliefs were universally granted.
Got any evidence of this, fundy? No you do not. Ergo
this is your faith talking. In fact it is you who do what
you falsely accuse me of. Don't you have any ethics?
And when it's pointed out that
they're not you lie about us.
More accusations you can't back up? I'm not surprised.
You can't argue rationally and are totally oblivious about
who you are addressing. Are you on drugs or is there some
other reason why you can't get it through your head that
I'm not a believer? When you act irrationally like this
you make atheists look bad and I resent it. If you are
going to do this then please quit identifying yourself as
an atheist, and PLEASE stop pretending that you are
the spokesmodel for all atheists. You ain't. Of course if
you are a stealth fundy merely pretending to be an atheist
in order to make them look bad then you will ignore this.
Stop being a whining hypocrite.
It is you who is whining here. For example: "You certainly
dosn't [sic] care - you stupidly talk at us..." Likewise, it
is you who is the hypocrite: you whine about theists
crossposting when in fact it was an atheist who crossposted
this thread and you who continue it.
And it is .
Why should the passing of 2000 years hav e to result
in proof? Where did that 'law' come from?
It demonstrates that you in-your-face rude morons have none.
Excuse me, but it is not rational to start with the name-calling
and then accuse your victim of rudeness. I dare say it is
hypocritical.
If you don't like being called a liar,
You can't even address my point so you change the subject
instead. That should be a clue to you but it isn't. Hint: I'm not
talking about your brain-dead flames and pathological
lying at the moment. I'm talking about your irrational
name-calling and your hypocrisy in accusing someone of
doing what you, in fact, do. Can you comprehend this?
Hello??
I can back up my claims, and have done so. You can't do
the same, can you? Answer the question this time.
an idiot or a hypocrite, don't
be those things.
I'm not doing those things, liar. Why don't you show
otherwise? Can you support your burden of proof?
Silly question, of course you can't. So you just make
claims you can't back up, merely pretending they are
true, just like your typical fundy.
The only hypocrite here is yourself: you lied about atheists, and you
rudely presumed to the same atheists that your pretend friend was a
given.
The Hitlerian Big Lie. Please quit posting while wearing
your alleged atheism on your sleeve.You may not give
a ***** about how atheists appear to others but I and other
ethical atheists do. You are an embarrassment to us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
07 Jun 2005 08:55:55 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jun 2005 02:12:47 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 08:13:03 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has t o follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
Hint: thgat was an example of your lies about atheists.
If you are addressing this to me then it is you who is
lying. Those aren't my words.
When two of you whining hypocrites lie in the same thread, it is easy
to confuse them.
You were the one who lied about Hitler, and invented non-existant
"reasons" why aheists point out that he was Catholic IN RESPONSE to
theists.
Who pretends that atheism is more than the non-event that it actually
is because he refuses to let it be the same as not believing in a
whole slew of other beliefs.
Who invents "reasons" why atheists say Hitler was a Christian in order
to dismiss the actual reasons we say it.
don't appear to be ever able to get past it.
No, liar, you merely have to put up or shut up, every time you beg the
question. Which you do every time you rudely presume it to those
outside your belief system.
You have been told several times that nobody would give a flying *****
about it if you kept it to yourself. After all, you know it's not
universally or even mutually granted.
Did you know you are posting to two religious newsgroups
or don't you care?
I'm replying to your own dishonesty, stupidity and lies about atheists
No you're not. This lie of yours is an example of your
own dishonesty and stupidity. You don't even know who
you are addressing and don't seem to care that you don't.
_That_ is stupidity.
I'm addressing somebody who repeats standard fundy canards - like the
fundy "no true Scotsman" redefinition of Christian so you could
pretend that Hitler wasn't a Christian.
Like the accusation that atheists attempt to define Christian because
we don't let them use that fallacy.
Like your refusal to understand that "Hitler was a Christian" is only
a response to Christians claiming that (a) he was an atheist or (b)
that Christianity stops people doing bad things. At which point it is
a legitimate refutation to either.
Like your refusal to allow (the majority of) atheists to treat people
as individuals so you could lie about a factual response that Hitler
was a Christian (Catholic) as being an attempt to tar all Christians
with the same brush.
When we don't even mention it unless and until a theist brings it up
in such a context.
Like your refusal to grasp that the holocaust was the culmination of
nearly two millannia of institutionalised anti-Semitism fostered by
the Church over the larger part of that time. It became part of the
very culture - by people who regarded Jews as Christ-killers. And only
a Christian could do that.
It's part of the bloody history of their religion that too many
Christians are in denial about. Intelligent and liberal ones
understand this and are embarrassed by it. Fundies don't. Catholics
are beginning to come to terms with it. Did you read the cites from
church fathers I posted in another article?
Like your refusal to grasp that in order to find out why somebody does
something you have to look at what they are, not what they aren't.
And that not believing in the deity of somebody else's religion
doesn't motivate anybody any more than not believing in Santa Claus
does, Or a Christian not believing in Zeus.
And that this is pretty much all atheists have on common.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
09 Jun 2005 01:52:43 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 02:12:47 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 08:13:03 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrot e:
Who invents "reasons" why atheists say Hitler was a Christian in order
to dismiss the actual reasons we say it.
*****. Start backing your accusations up. You've
already been caught trying to attribute words to me
that I didn't say. You have such poor reading
comprehension that after a week you still say I am a
theist. So why should you, of all people, presume that
you are exempt from supporting your burden of proof?
Did you know you are posting to two religious newsgroups
or don't you care?
I'm replying to your own dishonesty, stupidity and lies about atheists
No you're not. This lie of yours is an example of your
own dishonesty and stupidity. You don't even know who
you are addressing and don't seem to care that you don't.
_That_ is stupidity.
I'm addressing somebody who repeats standard fundy canards
Another accusation you won't support with evidence?
Contrary to your lie here, here is the exchange:
Lee:
"Too many dishonest Christians use an exclusive after-the-fact
redefinition from the standard one of a member of a religion that
hasJesus Christ as its deity, to somebody who never does bad things -
as you did.
Del:
I did? Then you won't mind quoting me where I
did this, I'm sure. Please do. If you can't do this
then retract your accusation please.
Lee:
You've obviously redeined [sic] it because you don't grant that
meaning.
Del:
If I don't grant your alleged "standard definition" it must mean I
define it as "somebody who never does bad things?" Isn't that the kind
of "binary" thinking you talk about here:
quoting Lee:
"You also have to remember that while Western Europe at the time was
full of believers, it wasn't modern US-style total belief but more
cultural, Sunday-morning-christenings-weddings-funerals Christianity.
So [Hitler] was most likely one of them too: where the fundies say
'but he's not really a Christian' kind of Christian. So to the binary
thinkers this makes him atheist."
-= End Quote =-
You never replied to this and it is easy to see why.
Instead you choose to lie about the exchange and about
me.
You also duck the point I made about you crossposting
to Christian groups. You are dishonest and an
embarrassment to ethical atheists. You really don't
care how bad you might make atheists look, do you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
09 Jun 2005 01:51:10 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 02:12:47 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 08:13:03 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrot e:
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has to follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
Hint: thgat was an example of your lies ab out atheists.
If you are addressing this to me then it is you who is
lying. Those aren't my words.
When two of you whining hypocrites lie in the same thread, it is easy
to confuse them.
Because, far from treating people as individuals, you
stereotype people: anyone who disagrees with your
dogma immediately becomes a god believer to you.
You look no farther and treat everyone you have so
stereotyped to the same mindless flammage and
namecalling, no evidence necessary. You think I
am a theist because I have not fallen in lock step
with you. This is stereotyping, period.
Even when I shoot down your lies about me, as I just
did with your phony "example," you continue to make
false accusations that you can't defend. You are one of
these people who can never admit to being wrong and so
you need to blame me for your blunder/lie instead of
taking responsibility for it--even if you must lie
additionally about me to do it, as you just did.
You were the one who lied about Hitler, and invented non-existant
"reasons" why aheists point out that he was Catholic IN RESPONSE to
theists.
No I didn't. You are lying again about me instead of
dealing with valid criticism of you. You merely omit
that criticism.
Who pretends that atheism is more than the non-event that it actually
is
Another lie. It is you who claim all sorts of
attributes for atheists and consider a lack of theism
ITSELF to be a positive attribute. Why don't you deny
_this_?
because he refuses to let it be the same as not believing in a
whole slew of other beliefs.
No I didn't. I could reply to all your silly, desperate
hypocrisy by simply quoting your own smug accusations
against others since they apply to you so well :
"One of the biggest problems is that because we don't swallow their
ridiculous claims, instead of either backing them up to mutual
satisfaction or withdrawing them, they resort to lies and insult..."
"When idiotically rude bigots tell me what [my]
position is and get it wrong as you did, [I] correct
them."
Why do you never backup your own claims?
j
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism is eternal |
09 Jun 2005 08:50:58 AM |
|
|
On 8 Jun 2005 23:51:10 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 02:12:47 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 08:13:03 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrot e:
On 4 Jun 2005 21:07:45 -0700, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yes, but what is the status of the above
remarks if there actually is a God?
If there actually is a God, you'd think that after 2,000 years of
trying, Christians would have had at least some small measure of
success with regard to providing objective evidence to support their
claims. To date, they have not. Ergo.....
Nothing has to follow from ergo. Unbelievers always
appear to be intoxicated with the idea of proof, and
Why the lies, liar?
Hint: thgat was an example of your lies ab out atheists.
If you are addressing this to me then it is you who is
lying. Those aren't my words.
When two of you whining hypocrites lie in the same thread, it is easy
to confuse them.
Because, far from treating people as individuals, you
stereotype people: anyone who disagrees with your
dogma immediately becomes a god believer to you.
You look no farther and treat everyone you have so
stereotyped to the same mindless flammage and
namecalling, no evidence necessary. You think I
am a theist because I have not fallen in lock step
with you. This is stereotyping, period.
No, liar. You know perfectly well that they don't. However when
somebody used standard fundy dishonesties the conclusion is obvious.
Like your use of the dishonest fundy's "no true Scotsman" redefinition
of "Christian".
Why not address why the conclusion was drawn instead of repeatedly
escalating with even more personal lies?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
