| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gregor K." |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2003 06:50:50 AM |
| Object: |
Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
I grew up in a non-Christian home. My father is an atheist and my
mother was a backslidden Christian, due mostly to marrying my father I
suspect. Anyway, I grew up an atheist. I never went to Church or
Sunday school, stayed in bed till lunch-time on Sundays, and hated
Christians who I thought were all stupid.
I spent the next decade working at achieving that goal and also trying
to find a meaning for my life. I went through a stage of fads, where I
would be fanatically interested in some subject, and then drop it when
I found that it did little or nothing to feed the hunger in my soul. I
didn't have many friends at high school, and those I did associate
with decided I was the person most likely to initiate a global
holocaust.
I dropped out of school after failing my University Entrance exams,
and got a job as a chemistry technician with the New Zealand
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. With the money came
independence. I left home, was living in a house by myself, going to a
job where I spoke to no-one, and going to night school at the local
polytechnic where I did the same. I had achieved my goal: my life was
empty of any emotions or meaningful contact with others. - It sucked.
The second year I was at night school I noticed a guy in my class was
trying to talk to me. He'd been trying for the previous year as well,
but I was too messed up to even notice. Luckily he was the patient
type. He was a Christian and he invited me to go to an evangelistic
outreach with him. I nearly punched him out. After that he tried just
to be my friend and not try any heavy evangelism on me.
As I grew to trust him we started talking about life and stuff like
that. I realized that a lot of what I had been told about Christians
when I was growing up was not true. I started asking him questions
about his beliefs and he answered them, but had the sense not to push
it any further.
My Mother has since reclaimed her faith so my family is now divided
down the middle; my mother and I are Christians, my father and brother
are atheists. Becoming a Christian didn't solve my problems, but it
helped me to understand them and it opened the way for God to start
healing me from my past.
After a long struggle and a fair bit of soul-searching I quit my job
and applied for the Youth Intern position at my local Church. I have
switched from doing a Diploma of Biblical Studies to doing a Ministry
Internship Diploma, which is a much more practical course. I am trying
to do less studying of God and more following him. So far I am
enjoying it, but I know following God is a lifetime journey. I still
have a long way to go.
As an aside, my friend from polytech is the most effective evangelist
I have ever met. He has never been to Bible College or had any formal
training and he says I now know far more theology than he does. But he
has a love for God that still amazes me.
Credit goes to http://www.dtl.org/dtl/article/ex-atheist.htm. and to
the writer of the article, Darren "Daz" Gedye
.
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
02 Nov 2003 12:28:22 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<r80vrgjc.fsf@pobox.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) writes:
As much as I agree with your conclusion, I'm afraid your argument is
invalid. Assuming the non-existence of a Creator does not,
unfortunately, imply that 'no human has the right to dictate to
another' - Soviet Communism being one counterexample.
Power != Right
Obviously the Soviet rulers (and a sizeable chunk of their subjects)
did not believe that 'no human has the right to dictate to one
another,' even though they believed there was no Creator.
(The Soviet Communists, eg, justified their dictatorship by the
claim that they alone correctly understood the Natural Laws of
History.)
If I disagree with their opinion, where do they get the right to
impose it upon me? They get the _power_ to do so from their guns,
of course.
From the belief that they had correct consciousness, while you didn't.
While that's an extreme example, I think it's pretty obvious that all
of us do grant authority to other people, from time to time wrt
specific objects...
Agreed--but that authority only exists over me because I grant it.
Yes; and that grant can include granting the other person the right to
dictate to you in that area. Which you can do, even if you don't
believe in a creator.
I can let a biology professor tell me certain things are true...
True. But the point is, he has no right to force you to listen to him.
Fair enough; you're saying that 'dictating' requires express or
implied force for those who disagree. So let's use another example:
I can join an army and let a sergeant tell me what to do at all times
- that's dictating, as it's backed up by force. I don't have to
believe in a creator to believe that his dictation is rightful;
whether I believed in a creator or not, would be irrelevant.
...there is a positive reward from violating the rules, if one gets
away with it...
Interesting, but you've overlooked a point: (1) Since most of the
people have an incentive to prefer #2, they also have an incentive to
stop people from 'getting away with it'...
Quite right. It's clear they have a motivation to try and prevent me
from breaking the rules. But they can't stop me trying, and the reward
for succeeding is enough to entice some to try.
And probably always will be, for some; whether it's a libertarian
society or some other one.
What's worse, the "some" includes not only criminals and petty
thieves, but also lawyers and senators.
Ahh, that's the other point I left out, just so as not to complicate
things. A lawmaker (a senator or whatever) can have as much incentive
to getting around the rules as a law-breaker; with far worry about
being punished. (In the extreme case, he can simply change the
rules.) To the degree he succeeds, the result would be incompatible
with a libertarian state; but it would equally be incompatible with an
anarchistic state. So while there may be a 'prisoner's dilemma'
which, over time, would make a society less and less libertarian, it
does not have to result in a situation of anarchy; it is more
reasonable to expect it to result in one of statism.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
25 Oct 2003 10:10:25 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:ekx0eo95.fsf@pobox.com:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:31:18 GMT, wrote:
Note, however, that the only defensible moral systems, consistent
with atheism, are libertarianism and anarchy.
Nonsense. First of all, neither is a moral system (they're political
systems), second, what does either of them have to do with a lack of
belief in deities?
Very simple. Moral systems involving God (or gods) rest on the
assumption that as Creator (or as superior beings), God (or gods) have
the right to dictate. The moral code is the body of their dictates.
Assuming the non-existence of any Creator or superior beings, then no
human has the right to dictate to any other: being ontological equals,
you can't tell me what to do, and I can't tell you.
Which explains a lot about why most atheists get tired of hearing xians
preaching to them.
But if humans do not have legitimate claim to tell me what to do, then
on what basis does my morality rest? In practice, expediency.
Philosophically, the only logically defensible bases are:
(1) No basis at all--i.e., a denial that any particular act is
"immoral". You have no right to tell me not to kill you (though I have
no right to stop you from trying to defend yourself.) That's the
principle underlying anarchism.
However, that same anarchism says that if you think it is moral to try to
kill me, be prepared for me to "shoot back". So, if we think about it
rationally, maybe we could do better if we cooperated and neither one of
us try to kill the other.....hmmm, a rational basis for morality.
(2) The assumption that coercion is the only immorality. This also
proceeds defensibly from the assumption that we are ontological equals
and also without superiors: you have no right to use force against me,
and vice versa. That is the moral foundation underlying
libertarianism.
Sounds good, so why do you seem to think that anarchy and/or
libertarianism aren't logical, rational solutions to the morality
question?
The prisoners' dilemma that biasses society toward #1 is simple, also:
while a society perfectly embodying #2 is aesthetically pleasing, and
tends to maximal happiness of all its citizens, there is a positive
reward from violating the rules, if one gets away with it. If everyone
violates the rules, of course, then anarchy and misery result.
So we can figure this out for ourselves, where does the need for some
"god given morality" come in?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
25 Oct 2003 10:21:12 PM |
|
|
Woden <woden@charter.net> writes:
lbudney@pobox.com wrote in news:ekx0eo95.fsf@pobox.com:
Assuming the non-existence of any Creator or superior beings, then
no human has the right to dictate to any other...
Which explains a lot about why most atheists get tired of hearing
xians preaching to them.
Preaching != dictating. Please don't misuse the English
language. Nevertheless, I realize that atheists "get tired of hearing
xtians", which is why I don't waste my time trying to convince them of
my views.
(1) No basis at all--i.e., a denial that any particular act is
"immoral". You have no right to tell me not to kill you...That's
the principle underlying anarchism.
However, that same anarchism says that if you think it is moral to try to
kill me, be prepared for me to "shoot back"...
If you reread my post, you'll notice that I pointed that out.
So, if we think about it rationally, maybe we could do better if we
cooperated and neither one of us try to kill the other...
You are now arguing expediency. You have not offered a convincing
basis to suggest, for example, that it's immoral for me to cooperate
except when killing you benefits me and I can get away with it.
...hmmm, a rational basis for morality.
No. A rational basis for cooperating most of the time because it's
expedient. There is a difference; you're abusing the English langauge
again by misappropriating the word "morality". See above.
(2) The assumption that coercion is the only immorality. This also
proceeds defensibly from the assumption that we are ontological equals
and also without superiors...
Sounds good, so why do you seem to think that anarchy and/or
libertarianism aren't logical, rational solutions to the morality
question?
I never said they weren't logical, rational solutions. I merely
remarked that they are the ONLY possible solutions. Learn to read.
The prisoners' dilemma...If everyone violates the rules, of course,
then anarchy and misery result.
So we can figure this out for ourselves, where does the need for some
"god given morality" come in?
Eh? What "this" are you referring to? That it's good for me if
everyone except me plays by the libertarian rules? Or something else?
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
25 Oct 2003 09:54:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:31:18 GMT, wrote:
Note, however, that the only defensible moral systems, consistent
with atheism, are libertarianism and anarchy.
Nonsense. First of all, neither is a moral system (they're political
systems), second, what does either of them have to do with a lack of
belief in deities?
Very simple. Moral systems involving God (or gods) rest on the
assumption that as Creator (or as superior beings), God (or gods) have
the right to dictate. The moral code is the body of their dictates.
Then they have no morals. They just have a set of laws they
are forced to abide by under the threat of severe punishment.
I noticed that you neglected to say how libertarianism or
anarchy are "moral systems".
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
25 Oct 2003 10:02:23 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
I noticed that you neglected to say how libertarianism or anarchy
are "moral systems".
Ah, that clears up the question in my earlier post: you are
illiterate. I did, but you seemingly missed it.
Libertarianism is merely the elaboration of the principle that all
coercion is immoral, and all voluntary behaviors are
moral. Libertarians commonly fail to recognize that this principle is
a moral dictum, because they assume it without discussion. Ludwig von
Mises is a particularly bad offender, because he claims ad nauseam
that his principles are purely economic and not at all moralistic.
Similarly, anarchism is merely the elaboration of the principle that
nobody can make rules for another--i.e., that "morality" is at bottom
a meaningless concept. The fundamental assumption is again a moral
axiom, namely the nonexistence of morality.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
25 Oct 2003 11:37:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
I noticed that you neglected to say how libertarianism
or anarchy are "moral systems".
Ah, that clears up the question in my earlier post
You have no questions, only baseless statements and arrogance.
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel the
need to molest Atheists with their spoon fed pabulum?
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 05:36:34 AM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel the need to
molest Atheists with their spoon fed pabulum?
Give one example of my doing such. You are apparently one of the
hostile atheists. In the words of one of your own, you must envy
believers and wish you could be one.
--Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 09:36:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel
the need to molest Atheists with their spoon fed
pabulum?
Give one example of my doing such.
Everything you've posted in this newsgroup.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 07:37:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:36:34 GMT, wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel the need to
molest Atheists with their spoon fed pabulum?
Give one example of my doing such. You are apparently one of the
hostile atheists. In the words of one of your own, you must envy
believers and wish you could be one.
"Not bad! Atheists I know often started out as believers, and hate
believers because they hate the implication that perhaps they're
wrong, since their religious background tells them that if they're
wrong, then they're in a heap of trouble."
--Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 12:30:59 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> writes:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:36:34 GMT, wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel the need to
molest Atheists with their spoon fed pabulum?
Give one example of my doing such...
"Not bad! Atheists I know often started out as believers..."
I replied to a post by one of your own, criticizing those atheists who
hate theists. I remarked that one class of former theists in my
aquaintance fits his profile.
At no point did I "molest atheists"--in fact I agreed with an atheist,
rather than molesting him. At no point did I base any statement on my
religious beliefs (what you call "spoon-fed pabulum").
Translation: learn to read.
--Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 04:36:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:30:59 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
I replied to a post by one of your own, criticizing those atheists who
hate theists. I remarked that one class of former theists in my
aquaintance fits his profile.
At no point did I "molest atheists"--in fact I agreed with an atheist,
rather than molesting him. At no point did I base any statement on my
religious beliefs (what you call "spoon-fed pabulum").
Translation: learn to read.
Ah, that clears up the question: you are illiterate.
In case you missed it, your posts were examples of both.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 06:06:48 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
[molestation and pabulum]
In case you missed it, your posts were examples of both.
You're long on name-calling and short on coherent arguments. But hey,
if youse call me illitteratt, then I must be.
--Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 08:08:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:06:48 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
[molestation and pabulum]
In case you missed it, your posts were examples of both.
You're long on name-calling and short on coherent arguments.
Your name calling and incoherent arguments don't warrant anything
more.
But hey, if youse call me illitteratt, then I must be.
You don't recognize your own words?
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 09:57:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:36:34 GMT, wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel the need to
molest Atheists with their spoon fed pabulum?
Give one example of my doing such. You are apparently one of the
hostile atheists. In the words of one of your own, you must envy
believers and wish you could be one.
Why would we envy people who believe in superstitious twaddle, much
less want to be one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 12:41:12 PM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
Why would we envy people who believe in superstitious twaddle, much
less want to be one?
I don't know--why are you so hostile? (Not to mention arrogant.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 02:30:01 PM |
|
|
<lbudney@pobox.com> wrote in message news:fzhf4zav.fsf@pobox.com...
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
Why would we envy people who believe in superstitious twaddle, much
less want to be one?
I don't know--why are you so hostile? (Not to mention arrogant.)
Most of us aren't hostile, we're just out of patience. We get a never-ending
stream of Christians, mostly of the fundamentalist variety, invading our
group proselytizing their religion (not to mention gloating over the idea of
us "godless heathens" burning in Hell), and we tend to get a bit tired of
it. Granted, you haven't done that (yet), but some of us are a tad quick on
the trigger. And raven1 didn't say anything we don't all feel, he was just a
little more blunt about it than some would be. To an atheist, what the
Christian sees as profound, life-altering truth *is* just someone else's
superstition. If calling it as you see it makes one "arrogant", then I guess
most of the members of alt.atheism are guilty as charged.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 05:56:43 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> writes:
Most of us aren't hostile, we're just out of patience.
"We're not hostile, we're justifiably rude."
Granted, you haven't done that (yet)...
....but we decided to use some preemptive obnoxiousness.
To an atheist, what the Christian sees as profound, life-altering
truth *is* just someone else's superstition.
Wow! What a profound, life-altering truth! I never knew that before!
If calling it as you see it makes one "arrogant", then I guess most
of the members of alt.atheism are guilty as charged.
How very pious.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 07:18:55 PM |
|
|
<lbudney@pobox.com> wrote in message news:3cdf4kov.fsf@pobox.com...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> writes:
Most of us aren't hostile, we're just out of patience.
"We're not hostile, we're justifiably rude."
Granted, you haven't done that (yet)...
...but we decided to use some preemptive obnoxiousness.
To an atheist, what the Christian sees as profound, life-altering
truth *is* just someone else's superstition.
Wow! What a profound, life-altering truth! I never knew that before!
If calling it as you see it makes one "arrogant", then I guess most
of the members of alt.atheism are guilty as charged.
How very pious.
Ah, I understand now. It would seem you're just another troll. Someone tries
to give you a simple, honest explanation without name-calling or other
unpleasantness, and how do you respond? Seems to me that you're guilty of
the very thing you've been taking the members of this group to task for, if
memory serves. What was that you were saying to raven1 about not having the
brains to see the irony? <holds up mirror for Len's benefit> You get what
you give. If people are rude to you, it's because you ask for it.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 07:36:17 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> writes:
You get what you give. If people are rude to you, it's because you
ask for it.
Being a matter of opinion, that statement can be neither proven nor
disproven. Nevertheless, a check will confirm that I did not fire
first.
If you meant your reply honestly, then I thank you for your
honesty--but pietisms like the following don't cut much ice with me:
If calling it as you see it makes one "arrogant", then I guess most
of the members of alt.atheism are guilty as charged.
I could say the same back.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
27 Oct 2003 10:32:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:36:17 GMT, wrote:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> writes:
You get what you give. If people are rude to you, it's because you
ask for it.
Being a matter of opinion, that statement can be neither proven nor
disproven. Nevertheless, a check will confirm that I did not fire
first.
A simple check of your first post shows you to be rude and
insulting. S.O.P. for theist. I.O.W. you started with a typical theist
attack.
If you meant your reply honestly, then I thank you for your
honesty--but pietisms like the following don't cut much ice with me:
If calling it as you see it makes one "arrogant", then I guess most
of the members of alt.atheism are guilty as charged.
I could say the same back.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 10:03:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:36:17 GMT, wrote:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> writes:
You get what you give. If people are rude to you, it's because you
ask for it.
Being a matter of opinion, that statement can be neither proven nor
disproven. Nevertheless, a check will confirm that I did not fire
first.
You sound like a five-year old whining to mommy that "he hit me back
first". Grow the ***** up, child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 04:36:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:41:12 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
Why would we envy people who believe in superstitious twaddle, much
less want to be one?
I don't know--why are you so hostile? (Not to mention arrogant.)
I don't know. Why do you feel the need to post religious twaddle to
alt.atheism?
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 06:07:34 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
I don't know. Why do you feel the need to post religious twaddle to
alt.atheism?
Quote one word of "religious twaddle" from any of my posts in this
thread. Get your big sister to help you with the long words.
--Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 08:10:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:07:34 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
I don't know. Why do you feel the need to post religious twaddle to
alt.atheism?
Quote one word of "religious twaddle"
All of your posts about "atheists" who still worry about whether the
religion they gave up is right.
Get your big sister to help you with the long words.
I was teaching while you were learning to wear diapers.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 02:26:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:41:12 GMT, wrote:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
Why would we envy people who believe in superstitious twaddle, much
less want to be one?
I don't know--
Then why would you suggest we might?
why are you so hostile? (Not to mention arrogant.)
You might ask yourself the same thing, after hurling one insult after
another at practically everyone in this thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 05:59:19 PM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
You might ask yourself the same thing, after hurling one insult
after another at practically everyone in this thread.
Double-check, jerk. I never fired first.
--Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 08:09:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:59:19 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
You might ask yourself the same thing, after hurling one insult
after another at practically everyone in this thread.
Double-check, jerk. I never fired first.
He didn't say you did. Learn to read.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 10:00:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:59:19 GMT, wrote:
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> writes:
You might ask yourself the same thing, after hurling one insult
after another at practically everyone in this thread.
Double-check, jerk. I never fired first.
So you're a liar as well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 06:48:38 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
lbudney@pobox.com wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes:
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel the need to
molest Atheists with their spoon fed pabulum?
Give one example of my doing such. You are apparently one of the
hostile atheists. In the words of one of your own, you must envy
believers and wish you could be one.
Why would we envy people who believe in superstitious twaddle, much
less want to be one?
It's called 'projection'. christians like tbundey here are
projecting their own envy, hostility, and doubts on us.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pepe le Pew" |
|
| Title: Re: Excerpts from an ex-atheist's testimony |
26 Oct 2003 05:32:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:37:47 -0700, David V. <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
lbudney@pobox.com wrote:
....
You have no questions, only baseless statements and arrogance.
My question is why do so many brainless christians feel the need to
molest Atheists with their spoon fed pabulum?
Hi David,
It's part of their religion. "If you love me, feed my sheep" kind
of thing.
I always treat the sheep analogy as an insult.
Later,
Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan
--
P.T. Barnum was right!
Byte stuffing
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
