On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:01:35 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote:

*****. Atheism isn't a religion, and your abject stupidity is duly

Based on your crap, there are two kinds of people....those that believe

Invisible Pink Unicorns, and those that have just blinded themselves to
their existence.

Merriam Websters: Religion: 4 : a cause, principle, or system of
beliefs held to with ardor and faith

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:01:35 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote:

*****. Atheism isn't a religion, and your abject stupidity is duly noted.

Based on your crap, there are two kinds of people....those that believe in
Invisible Pink Unicorns, and those that have just blinded themselves to
their existence.

Merriam Websters: Religion: 4 : a cause, principle, or system of
beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Both belief in a diety and belief that there is no diety require faith

(and many atheists are certainly as ardent if not more so than many
who believe there is a diety).

As to unicorns, I have to claim agnosticism, I have never seen a pink
unicorn, but I cannot prove that there isn't one somewhere. I may
have seen a pink elephant once years ago - but that's another story.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:01:35 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote:

*****. Atheism isn't a religion, and your abject stupidity is duly
noted.

Based on your crap, there are two kinds of people....those that believe
in Invisible Pink Unicorns, and those that have just blinded themselves
to their existence.

Merriam Websters: Religion: 4 : a cause, principle, or system of
beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Both belief in a diety and belief that there is no diety require faith
(and many atheists are certainly as ardent if not more so than many
who believe there is a diety).

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:01:35 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote:

*****. Atheism isn't a religion, and your abject stupidity is duly noted.

Based on your crap, there are two kinds of people....those that believe in
Invisible Pink Unicorns, and those that have just blinded themselves to
their existence.

Merriam Websters: Religion: 4 : a cause, principle, or system of
beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Both belief in a diety and belief that there is no diety require faith
(and many atheists are certainly as ardent if not more so than many
who believe there is a diety).

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:41:46 GMT, Terrell D Lewis
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1 Jul 2004 21:32:03 -0700,

Somebody should take all the Christian anti-atheist nonsense and
collect it somewhere, making a Perl script to regurgitate it every
once in a while. Unless somebody already did.

CHristianity and atheism are both religions, both require faith, one
that there is a God and one that there isn't.

Why are so many people like you so deliberately stupid?

Except for those who have had a personal encounter with God ...

Bwahahahahaha! There is no such thing. No Santa either. Grow up.

I think
agnosticism is more honest, then one simply admits one does not

We know there is no such thing, and cannot possibly be one, due to the
fatal proglem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it,
pointed out by Bertrand Russell:

Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for God):

"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world

a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much

nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on

and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was

young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind,

for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one

at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the

question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God,

that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of

same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an

and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How

the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the

could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other

is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon

argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html

Only in the dreams of the militant agnostics who don't realise that

singling it out to be agnostic about it,they are granting it
undeserved special status. It's not the neutral position they

It's not even agnosticism, it is just garden variety theism, the
unsupported religious belief that a magically invisible sky pixie

exist anyway, even though there is no logically satisfactory evidence

justify such conviction. Agnostics deny and repudiate such religious
belief as a matter of principle.

This is all about that irrational theist religious belief that there
might be a magically invisible god anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing (theists), the absence of such irrational
religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further, the outright
denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter of

(agnostics).

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who

atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

I think
agnosticism is more honest, then one simply admits one does not know.

We [ meaning only Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, by himself and no
one else ] know there is no such thing:

Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause:

"If
everything MUST have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God,." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html

Only in the dreams of the militant agnostics who don't realise that by
singling it out to be agnostic about it,they are granting it
undeserved special status. It's not the neutral position they pretend.

It's not even agnosticism, it is just garden variety theism, the
unsupported religious belief that a magically invisible sky pixie might
exist anyway, even though there is no logically satisfactory evidence to
justify such conviction. Agnostics deny and repudiate such religious
belief as a matter of principle.

In alt.talk.creationism, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote
in <v7oae09kmpvthv4l1s6qd41lgefvm5evat@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:41:46 GMT, Terrell D Lewis
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1 Jul 2004 21:32:03 -0700,

Somebody should take all the Christian anti-atheist nonsense and
collect it somewhere, making a Perl script to regurgitate it every
once in a while. Unless somebody already did.

CHristianity and atheism are both religions, both require faith, one
that there is a God and one that there isn't.

Why are so many people like you so deliberately stupid?

Apparently religious folks know that a lack of religion is superior, so
they want to drag them down to their level.

Except for those who have had a personal encounter with God, I think
agnosticism is more honest, then one simply admits one does not know.

Only in the dreams of the militant agnostics who don't realise that by
singling it out to be agnostic about it,they are granting it
undeserved special status. It's not the neutral position they pretend.

For some it is.