| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Soren K." |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2004 11:15:19 PM |
| Object: |
EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0"
------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Blank=20
EXPOSING THE ATHEIST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that =
atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the reasons =
why you should turned away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch =
belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very =
carefully.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its =
author. satan is its author.=20
It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin =
in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of =
God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been =
previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's =
meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the =
existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does =
indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that =
fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to =
God's existence."=20
Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, =
but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine =
authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is =
their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the =
TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other =
laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, =
but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in =
the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny =
that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit =
the existence of God.=20
Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he =
will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own =
existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one =
hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other.=20
In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must =
understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are =
antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, =
its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is =
an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its =
nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God =
even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its =
hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called "the law of sin" which =
is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. The law =
of sin is none other than the law that governs satan's kingdom.=20
Below are articles I've presented in effort to expose the true satanic =
nature of atheism, the great harm it is doing to the american society =
and the world community and to prove and demonstrate that atheists and =
all other nonbelievers in the true God are the actual criminals of the =
world community. I hope these articles will enable people to see that =
atheists are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made =
against them by all the governments of the world community.=20
--=20
Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists
www.atheistfools.com
------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=3DridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"><BASE=20
href=3D"file://C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft =
Shared\Stationery\">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; =
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DridBody bgColor=3D#ffffff=20
background=3Dcid:000401c48347$a454e400$0300a8c0@desktop>
<DIV><A name=3DTOP>
<CENTER><FONT color=3D#008080 size=3D+2><B>EXPOSING THE =
ATHEIST</B></FONT></CENTER>
<P> </P>
<CENTER> </CENTER>
<HR>
<P>The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate =
that=20
atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the reasons =
why you=20
should turned away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch belief in =
the=20
Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very carefully. </P>
<HR>
<P>The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its =
author.=20
satan is its author. </P>
<P>It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his =
origin in=20
heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of =
God,=20
heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been =
previously=20
deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's meaning of =
atheism,=20
<B>atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in =
the midst=20
of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.</B> Atheism knows =
God=20
exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no =
circumstance=20
or situation will I admit to God's existence." </P>
<P>Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, =
but=20
refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine =
authorship of=20
the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. =
Atheism=20
perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but =
refuses=20
to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives =
the=20
divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If =
an=20
atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel =
them with=20
his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is =
deliberate effort=20
to never admit the existence of God. </P>
<P>Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he =
will=20
deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own existence =
even while=20
in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its =
existence by=20
denying its truth with the other. </P>
<P>In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must =
understand=20
the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are =
antithetical to one=20
another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very =
antithetical=20
nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical =
principle to=20
righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane =
instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and =
has given=20
it no just cause for its hatred. It is this antithetical principle, =
called "the=20
law of sin" which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to =
reject=20
God. The law of sin is none other than the law that governs satan's =
kingdom.=20
</P>
<P>Below are articles I've presented in effort to expose the true =
satanic nature=20
of atheism, the great harm it is doing to the american society and the =
world=20
community and to prove and demonstrate that atheists and all other =
nonbelievers=20
in the true God are the actual criminals of the world community. I hope =
these=20
articles will enable people to see that atheists are extremely dangerous =
people.=20
Therefore laws should be made against them by all the governments of the =
world=20
community. </P></A></DIV>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR>Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.atheistfools.com">www.atheistfools.com</A></DIV>
<P> </P></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0--
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="Blank Bkgrd.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <000401c48347$a454e400$0300a8c0@desktop>
R0lGODlhLQAtAID/AP////f39ywAAAAALQAtAEACcAxup8vtvxKQsFon6d02898pGkgiYoCm6sq2
7iqWcmzOsmeXeA7uPJd5CYdD2g9oPF58ygqz+XhCG9JpJGmlYrPXGlfr/Yo/VW45e7amp2tou/lW
xo/zX513z+Vt+1n/tiX2pxP4NUhy2FM4xtjIUQAAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C4830C.F7F792A0--
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
19 Aug 2004 12:57:26 AM |
|
|
In article <kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...
The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two completely
different things, knucklehead.
Your "denial" is a claim that "there might be a god" statement is false.
If your denial is not such a claim, then you are admitting that it might
the case that here might be a god.
How can it be that an adult does not know the difference between a claim
and the denial (the negation in logic) of one,
Because that "denial" by Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space
Pixies) asserts the falsehood of a particular statement, and any such
assertion of the falsehood, or the truth, of any statement is a claim
requiring justification. The only non-claim assertions about the
falsehood, or truth, of statements are assertions that the falsehood, or
truth, is unknown because there is no proof of that falsehood, or truth.
It would seem that Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is
himself not an adult if he insists on conflating his claim that "there
might be a god" is false, with the more legitmate denial saying merely
that the actual existence of a god is not known to be true.
and how can it be that an
adult does not know the principle that the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial
Depends on which form of denial. If Septic (of the Magically Invisible
Space Pixies) is merely denying that "there might be a god" has been
proven, he need not prove it, but if he is asserting that "there might
be a god" is false, he needs to prove it but he can't.
because that is logical fallacy, a form of
argument _ad ignorantiam_?
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is WRONG! AGAIN!
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) clearly has no idea
what an argumentum ad ignoratiam really is, he just sticks it in here
and there because he can't thing of anything better to do. If Septic
claims that something is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, let him prove his
accusation by showing how the accused argument satisfies some
independent definition. Otherwise such an unanalysed accusation is
itself a fallacy, the fallacy of argumentum ad hominemm.
How Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) can deny with a
straight face that as far as anyone knows for certain there might be a
god when he cannot prove for certain that there isn't be one, I don't
know, and it would take someone with more godlike powers than anyone
here to make sense of that convoluted position.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) does not merely deny
that "there might be a god" is known to be true, he claims it is false,
and so saying, he makes a claim which he is required to support with
evidence, unless he wants his claim rejected.
Study up,Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies), if you want
to argue with your betters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
19 Aug 2004 02:09:18 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...
The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two completely
different things, knucklehead.
Your "denial" is a claim ...
You really don't understand the difference between an assertion and the
denial (the negation) of that assertion, which are two completely
different things?
You really don't know about the principle that the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial as you are trying to do?
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ANTI-THEIST |
19 Aug 2004 03:23:53 PM |
|
|
In article <uV6Vc.47138$TI1.2352@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...
The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two completely
different things, knucklehead.
Your "denial" is a claim ...
You really don't understand the difference between an assertion and the
denial (the negation)
The negation of a statement (statement that another statement is false)
is at least as much a claim as the original. The only form of "denial"
that is not a claim is the rejection of a statement as KNOWN to be true,
for lack of evidence. This is not what Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
is saying.
of that assertion, which are two completely
different things?
They are different in specific content, but, at least in the form that
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, uses, his is a claim to KNOW that that
some statement is true ( by knowing that another is false).
One of these days, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, might just wake up
to the fact that his statements, claims and arguments are subject to the
same rules and logic as everybody else's.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, was not, despite the way he acts,
ordained by God to prove God's non-existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
19 Aug 2004 04:21:03 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <uV6Vc.47138$TI1.2352@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>, Dixit
<dix@nospam.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...
The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two
completely different things, knucklehead.
Your "denial" is a claim ...
You really don't understand the difference between an assertion and
the denial (the negation) of that assertion, which are two completely
different things?
You really don't know about the principle that the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial as you are trying to do?
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
The negation of a statement (statement that another statement is
false) is at least as much a claim as the original.
Don't be silly. You are just trying to get away with shifting the burden
to anybody who questions or denies your 'might be a god' assertion. That
isn't allowed. See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
19 Aug 2004 06:05:43 PM |
|
|
In article <3R8Vc.1555$9d6.907@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uV6Vc.47138$TI1.2352@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>, Dixit
<dix@nospam.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...
The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two
completely different things, knucklehead.
Your "denial" is a claim ...
You really don't understand the difference between an assertion and
the denial (the negation) of that assertion, which are two completely
different things?
A claim to know the truth or falsehood of a statement is a claim bearing
all the burden of proof as any other such claim. Only if Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, is not claiming to know the truth or falsehood of "as
far as I know there might be a god" then he does nto bear such a burden,
but everyone can see that he is claiming to know that "as far as I know
there might be a god" is false.
And how in blazes can Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claim to know
whether I know whether ther is a god?
The negation of a statement (statement that another statement is
false) is at least as much a claim as the original.
Don't be silly. You are just trying to get away with shifting the burden
to anybody who questions or denies your 'might be a god' assertion. That
isn't allowed. See above.
Those who merely question whether "as far as I know a god might exist"
are one thing, though why they would question what I say I don't know, I
don't know.
Those who assert that my statement "as far as I know a god might exist",
is false statement are themselves making a false statement about what I
know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ANTI-THEIST |
19 Aug 2004 04:19:47 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <uV6Vc.47138$TI1.2352@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...
The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two completely
different things, knucklehead.
Your "denial" is a claim ...
You really don't understand the difference between an assertion and the
denial (the negation) of that assertion, which are two completely different things?
You really don't know about the principle that the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial as you are trying to do?
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
The negation of a statement (statement that another statement is false)
is at least as much a claim as the original.
Don't be silly. You are just trying to get away with shifting the burden
to anybody who questions or denies your 'might be a god' assertion. That
isn't allowed. See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ANTI-THEIST |
19 Aug 2004 06:29:08 PM |
|
|
In article <TP8Vc.17312$Fg5.9094@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uV6Vc.47138$TI1.2352@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...
The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two completely
different things, knucklehead.
Your "denial" is a claim ...
You really don't understand the difference between an assertion and the
denial (the negation) of that assertion, which are two completely different
things?
When we say that, as far as we, know there might possibly be a god, and
you deny it, you are saying that we do know that there cannot be any
gods. Such a statement claiming knowledge of other people's states of
mind certainly cannot be accepted on face value, particularly
considering the source.
You really don't know about the principle that the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial as you are trying to do?
I do not understand why any statement must be accepted as a true without
logically convincing evidence. First, convince me that there are
statements that MUST be believed without logically convincing evidence,
and then I just MIGHT accept your burden of proof lies.
The negation of a statement (statement that another statement is false)
is at least as much a claim as the original.
Don't be silly.
I make no attempts to usurp your prerogatives in that area. Surely your
God, Copi, explains that in simple enough terms so that even you can
understand it.
You are just trying to get away with shifting the burden
to anybody who questions or denies your 'might be a god' assertion. That
isn't allowed. See above.
I have done it. Whether you want to allow it is irrelevant.
My statement is "As far as I (we) know, there might be a god (and,
equally, there might not."
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, denies my statement. It is now Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple's move.
No doubt Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple 's move will involve snipping
out essential parts of my exposition out to make it easier to answer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 03:35:37 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
There is no such thing as God®, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God®, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything...
Such claims of absolute certainty must be supported by evidence of great
probity in order to be considered acceptable.
Septic Capon's, the Simple Pimple, claim above, like other of his
claims, is not so supported and is not acceptable.
They are brainwashed by Karl Marx whose favorite evolutionary propaganda
ploy used in Communism was 'religion is the opiate of the masses'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 04:34:07 PM |
|
|
In article <t_tUc.1320$SR4.71@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
There is no such thing as God®, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God®, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything...
Such claims of absolute certainty must be supported by evidence of great
probity in order to be considered acceptable.
Septic Capon's, the Simple Pimple, claim above, like other of his
claims, is not so supported and is not acceptable.
They are brainwashed by Karl Marx whose favorite evolutionary propaganda
ploy used in Communism was 'religion is the opiate of the masses'.
Negating religion seems to be the opiate of Septic (of the Magically
Invisible Space Pixies).
Saner minds prefer to just ignore it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 05:22:18 PM |
|
|
Mad Scientist wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as God®, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God®, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything...
Such claims of absolute certainty must be supported by evidence of
great probity in order to be considered acceptable.
The knucklehead snipped it, as usual, but it isn't a claim, it is simply
pointing out the giant hole in Virgil's argument, showing why there is
no possibility it could ever be true as Virgil argues that there might
be a magically invisible God®, the hypothetical first cause/creator of
the universe.
They are brainwashed by Karl Marx whose favorite evolutionary propaganda
ploy used in Communism was 'religion is the opiate of the masses'.
Look in a mirror if you want to see somebody who appears to be
branwashed, old boy. The fact is that there is no such thing as God®,
and cannot possibly be. There is no possibility that there might
actually be such a thing as God®, the theists' hypothetical first
cause/creator of everything, due to the fatal problem (special pleading)
inherent in the very idea of God®, which Russell points out.
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes as you do that
there might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
argument for God®, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
that does not run into this fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in
the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 07:50:05 PM |
|
|
In article <uyvUc.274195$%_6.204779@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Mad Scientist wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as God®, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God®, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything...
Such claims of absolute certainty must be supported by evidence of
great probity in order to be considered acceptable.
The knucklehead snipped it, as usual, but it isn't a claim,
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) now claims that "There
is no such thing as God, and cannot possibly be." is not a claim.
It is certainly an assertion made in a style that makes it seem that the
author wants it accepted as true. In my book, that makes it a claim.
it is simply
pointing out the giant hole in Virgil's argument,
I am not making an argument, I am merely pointing out that Septic (of
the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is again trying to pass off as if
they were true various statements for which he can present no physical
evidence or logically convincing arguments.
The fact is that there is no such thing as God®,
and cannot possibly be.
Known facts can only be established by physical evidence or logically
correct deductions from other known facts, or a combination of both.
This claim, "The fact is that there is no such thing as God, and cannot
possibly be.", by Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) has
not been and cannot be established by either physical evidence or
logically correct deductions from known facts. Therefore it is not a
known fact.
Thus Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) merely presumes
that there can be no such thing as a God, but does not know it, and
cannot properly claim it to be known.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God®
Known facts can only be established by physical evidence or logically
correct deductions from other facts, or a combination of both.
This claim, "There is no possibility that there might actually be such a
thing as God", by Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) has
not been and cannot be established by either. Therefore it is not known
fact.
Thus Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) presumes that
there is no possibility of such thing as a God, but does not know it,
and cannot claim it to be known.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
18 Aug 2004 07:04:23 AM |
|
|
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:20:50 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
...God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
That's just logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, mon frère.
You can call it whatever you want. But He isn't
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
If you can demonstrate anything not physical you win $1,000,000.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Things not physical have been demonstrated, but not
accepted by the mainstream scientists.
There is no such thing as God®, and cannot possibly be.
Prove it.
There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God®,
I don't have time for arrogance. All you say is that
if I can't prove it, that it can't be and that is about
as unscientific as it gets. You cannot prove
macroevolution, yet, you claim it is absolute truth,
with no room for doubt. Use your argument on yourself
and see how far you get with yourself. Remember,
microevolution events do not count.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"What part of 'THOU SHALT NOT' don't you understand?"
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 01:16:18 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:27:55 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
screamed out:
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is
uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of God®, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for God®) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
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 weight
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 cause,
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 a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
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 further
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, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Stevie forgot that design and language require
intelligence. DNA definitely contains a language and
as for the world causing itself, the world is not
intelligent, nor did it exist to create itself and if
it did, then it was already created. God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
Evolutionists are nothing but Marxist Communists who support evolution
in order to denounce religion and anyone who believes in God. They
couch themselves in pseudoscientific language which proves how insane
they are, that is why they will never admit that DNA shows an
'intelligence' because that proves it was created.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 02:16:53 PM |
|
|
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:SXrUc.416757$rCA1.166997@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Evolutionists are nothing but Marxist Communists who support evolution
in order to denounce religion and anyone who believes in God. They
couch themselves in pseudoscientific language which proves how insane
they are, that is why they will never admit that DNA shows an
'intelligence' because that proves it was created.
And you are a damned liar.
Yes, that was not polite. But it is the only way I can truthfully say it. I
know many scientists who go to church, pray, and serve God -- and use
evolutionary theory. I even know some scientists who are Republicans and
plan to vote for Bush.
Painting everyone who disagrees with you with the same black libelous brush
only shows your own black nasty nature.
Fortunately, you don't have to remain that way. Unfortunately, with such
nastiness as you have projected, you are likely to have to change your
posting name along with your habits if you ever want to be taken the least
bit seriously or have people want to talk to you.
All you have done with your diatribes is alienate practically everyone. So
you stand nearly alone with only a few kooks and crazies as insensitive as
you for support -- does it make you feel good to be outside the boundaries
of civil society? Does your contempt for everyone you perceive as inferior
to you make you happy?
Your freedive into the verbal cesspool doesn't help you a bit. All it does
is ensure that people will not listen to you. Is that really what you want?
If so, you've got it!
I have only killfiled two people in my time on the net. But you are making
me think about doing it a third time. I hope I don't have to do it.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 02:18:31 PM |
|
|
Another usenet sociopath proves how insane Marxist evolutionary theory
really has become.
Raymond E. Griffith wrote:
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:SXrUc.416757$rCA1.166997@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Evolutionists are nothing but Marxist Communists who support evolution
in order to denounce religion and anyone who believes in God. They
couch themselves in pseudoscientific language which proves how insane
they are, that is why they will never admit that DNA shows an
'intelligence' because that proves it was created.
And you are a damned liar.
Yes, that was not polite. But it is the only way I can truthfully say it. I
know many scientists who go to church, pray, and serve God -- and use
evolutionary theory. I even know some scientists who are Republicans and
plan to vote for Bush.
Painting everyone who disagrees with you with the same black libelous brush
only shows your own black nasty nature.
Fortunately, you don't have to remain that way. Unfortunately, with such
nastiness as you have projected, you are likely to have to change your
posting name along with your habits if you ever want to be taken the least
bit seriously or have people want to talk to you.
All you have done with your diatribes is alienate practically everyone. So
you stand nearly alone with only a few kooks and crazies as insensitive as
you for support -- does it make you feel good to be outside the boundaries
of civil society? Does your contempt for everyone you perceive as inferior
to you make you happy?
Your freedive into the verbal cesspool doesn't help you a bit. All it does
is ensure that people will not listen to you. Is that really what you want?
If so, you've got it!
I have only killfiled two people in my time on the net. But you are making
me think about doing it a third time. I hope I don't have to do it.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 01:25:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:27:55 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
screamed out:
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is
uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of God®, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for God®) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
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 weight
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 cause,
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 a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
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 further
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, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Stevie forgot that design and language require
intelligence. DNA definitely contains a language and
as for the world causing itself, the world is not
intelligent, nor did it exist to create itself and if
it did, then it was already created. God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
they will never admit that DNA shows an
'intelligence' because that proves it was created.
If showing "intelligence" is proof that something was created, you are
the best argument for evolution I've ever seen.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 01:28:10 PM |
|
|
W. Syme wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:27:55 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
screamed out:
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is
uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of God®, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for God®) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
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 weight
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 cause,
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 a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
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 further
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, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Stevie forgot that design and language require
intelligence. DNA definitely contains a language and
as for the world causing itself, the world is not
intelligent, nor did it exist to create itself and if
it did, then it was already created. God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
they will never admit that DNA shows an
'intelligence' because that proves it was created.
If showing "intelligence" is proof that something was created, you are
the best argument for evolution I've ever seen.
Another usenet sociopath attempts to say something intelligent proving
how much of an insult they are to the ancestors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 01:35:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:28:10 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:
W. Syme wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:27:55 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
screamed out:
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is
uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of God®, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for God®) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
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 weight
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 cause,
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 a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
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 further
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, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Stevie forgot that design and language require
intelligence. DNA definitely contains a language and
as for the world causing itself, the world is not
intelligent, nor did it exist to create itself and if
it did, then it was already created. God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
they will never admit that DNA shows an
'intelligence' because that proves it was created.
If showing "intelligence" is proof that something was created, you are
the best argument for evolution I've ever seen.
Another usenet sociopath attempts to say something intelligent proving
how much of an insult they are to the ancestors.
Knowing our ancestors to be monkies, I'm glad to see that at least you
aren't an insult to them.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 01:42:41 PM |
|
|
W. Syme wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:28:10 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:
W. Syme wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:27:55 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
screamed out:
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is
uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of God®, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for God®) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
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 weight
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 cause,
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 a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
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 further
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, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Stevie forgot that design and language require
intelligence. DNA definitely contains a language and
as for the world causing itself, the world is not
intelligent, nor did it exist to create itself and if
it did, then it was already created. God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
they will never admit that DNA shows an
'intelligence' because that proves it was created.
If showing "intelligence" is proof that something was created, you are
the best argument for evolution I've ever seen.
Another usenet sociopath attempts to say something intelligent proving
how much of an insult they are to the ancestors.
Knowing our ancestors to be monkies, I'm glad to see that at least you
aren't an insult to them.
THe Marxist/Communist origin of evolutionary ideology is no longer
hidden from view. Communists are not going to 'win' through their
evolutionary pseudoscience because free thinking people can see through
it and won't allow the world to be enslaved to a the neo-fascist
propagandist agenda. Hitler and NAZISM proved how flawed and irrational
the philosophy of 'survival of the fittest' truly is, and despite how
much sociopaths and psychopaths wish to further propagandize the world
with their egotistical 'win-loose' delusions about Life. Knowledge has
a much grander purpose than to simply stroke your pathetic ego.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 10:11:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:25:45 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$Qa4.3124@twister.socal.rr.com...
WHICH CAME
FIRST?
By
New10.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? An
egg cannot create itself, so
it is the chicken that came first. Which came
first god or man? A god cannot
create its self so man came first. SIMPLE LOGIC
Invalid logic. False analogy.
The flaw is that neither an egg nor a chicken can create itself. In fact
nothing can create itself. Therefore, something has always existed which is
uncreated.
Correct.
Both God and the individual souls are eternal.
Or non existent.
I believe the second option is the truth.
They "came first", although
strictly speaking, they did not "come" at all. They are uncreated.
If they are non existent they certainly dont "come".
The material bodies are not eternal.
Correct.
They are created by God for temporary
habitation by the individual souls.
Gods, dragons, unicorns and leprachauns are mythical beasts - they
exist in our minds and our minds are very recent things.
There are living trees that are older than God.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 09:49:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:25:45 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$Qa4.3124@twister.socal.rr.com...
WHICH CAME
FIRST?
By
New10.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? An
egg cannot create itself, so
it is the chicken that came first. Which came
first god or man? A god cannot
create its self so man came first. SIMPLE LOGIC
Invalid logic. False analogy.
The flaw is that neither an egg nor a chicken can create itself. In fact
nothing can create itself. Therefore, something has always existed which is
uncreated.
Both God and the individual souls are eternal. They "came first", although
strictly speaking, they did not "come" at all. They are uncreated.
The material bodies are not eternal. They are created by God for temporary
habitation by the individual souls.
Un-supported assertions, and therefore, equally invalid.
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 09:47:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:12:59 GMT, "New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com>
wrote:
WHICH CAME
FIRST?
By
New10.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? An
egg cannot create itself, so
it is the chicken that came first. Which came
first god or man? A god cannot
create its self so man came first. SIMPLE LOGIC
Simple, it is, but unfortunately, flawed.
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 09:42:17 PM |
|
|
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:ou8Uc.117627$HY4.24411@amsnews03.chello.com...
Soren K. wrote:
*EXPOSING THE ATHEIST*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that
atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the reasons
why you should turned away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch
belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very
carefully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its
author. satan is its author.
Damn... do you really have nothing better to do that regurgitating
this old crap?
RS
Raymond has no life.
MM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 08:18:18 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:42:17 -0400 in episode
<iL-dneqL1vPj7bzcRVn-rg@comcast.com> we saw our hero "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net>:
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:ou8Uc.117627$HY4.24411@amsnews03.chello.com...
Soren K. wrote:
*EXPOSING THE ATHEIST*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate
that atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the
reasons why you should turned away from atheism and nonbelief - to a
staunch belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these
articles very carefully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its
author. satan is its author.
Damn... do you really have nothing better to do that regurgitating this
old crap?
RS
Raymond has no life.
MM
He would have to get a life just to reach the status of "no life."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
15 Aug 2004 11:31:09 PM |
|
|
Soren K. wrote:
EXPOSING THE ATHEIST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that
atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the reasons
why you should turned away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch
belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very
carefully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its
author. satan is its author.
It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin
in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of
God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been
previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's
meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the
existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does
indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that
fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to
God's existence."
Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation,
but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine
authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is
their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the
TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other
laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ,
but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in
the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny
that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit
the existence of God.
Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he
will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own
existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one
hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other.
In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must
understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are
antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness,
its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is
an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its
nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God
even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its
hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called "the law of sin" which
is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. The law
of sin is none other than the law that governs satan's kingdom.
Below are articles I've presented in effort to expose the true satanic
nature of atheism, the great harm it is doing to the american society
and the world community and to prove and demonstrate that atheists and
all other nonbelievers in the true God are the actual criminals of the
world community. I hope these articles will enable people to see that
atheists are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made
against them by all the governments of the world community.
--
Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists
www.atheistfools.com <http://www.atheistfools.com>
Asking an atheist to realize that would be akin to ask an evolutionist
to explain why the human race has ten toes and ten fingers instead of
lets say, 2 or 3 or none. LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 08:17:23 PM |
|
|
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<hMWTc.1740680$Ar.937035@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Asking an atheist to realize that would be akin to ask an evolutionist
to explain why the human race has ten toes and ten fingers instead of
lets say, 2 or 3 or none. LOL
We have them because our ancestors had at least that many and our
genes dictate that we have that many. Next question? Or would you
rather debate this?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 09:01:17 PM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<hMWTc.1740680$Ar.937035@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Asking an atheist to realize that would be akin to ask an evolutionist
to explain why the human race has ten toes and ten fingers instead of
lets say, 2 or 3 or none. LOL
We have them because our ancestors had at least that many and our
genes dictate that we have that many. Next question? Or would you
rather debate this?
Budikka
It actually goes back to the Cambrian at least. Our truly
ancient ancestors were bilaterally symmetrical, with five digits
on each proximal limb and five digits on each distal limb. This
has largely been maintained in our lineage, although some, such
as the horse, have evolved to lose or fuse some digits.
There are other body plans, such as the arachnids, that have
other symmetries. Some, like starfish, are not bilaterally
symmetrical.
We evolved in the lineage that had four limbs, arranged with
bilateral symmetry, with five digits at the end of each limb.
--
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 08:24:50 PM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<hMWTc.1740680$Ar.937035@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Asking an atheist to realize that would be akin to ask an evolutionist
to explain why the human race has ten toes and ten fingers instead of
lets say, 2 or 3 or none. LOL
We have them because our ancestors had at least that many and our
genes dictate that we have that many. Next question? Or would you
rather debate this?
Budikka
I meant why as in the cause other than to say - 'heredity'. Your answer
is very fundamentalist - who could easily say - 'because we are in the
Image of God. Still doesn't explain or account for the underlying causes
inherant in the biological mechanism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 11:49:51 PM |
|
|
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<C7dUc.1754629$Ar.441937@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
I meant why as in the cause other than to say - 'heredity'.
Clearly you don't understand evolution as well as you ought to. What
answer need there be, other than heredity? Evolution is heredity.
The reason we have five digits is because our ancestors had five
digits and passed it on to us via genes. Actually some primitive
amphibian-like organisms had many more than five, but at some point
five became some sort of "norm" or "center of gravity" for organisms.
We see that so many of them which have digits have five or a number
close to five.
There are exceptions. In the case of the horse, only one digit
remains, but the evidence shows that this is the last remaining of a
set containing a number much closer to the "norm". Evolutionists can
explain this. Creationists cannot. Doubtlessly the reason we have
this number is because the number enabled our ancestors to do
everything that survival called for without being excessive and
therefore a waste of energy to maintain.
Evolution is not a thnking being. It does not make future plans and
carry them out to some purpose. It does not have a design or a goal
to aim for. It's pointless to ask questions of that nature or berate
respondants for not offering an explanation of that nature.
Your answer is very fundamentalist - who could easily say -
'because we are in the Image of God.
But then you would have to make a case that: 1. This "god" does
exist, and 2. This god has five digits. I've never seen anyone make
such a case. Evolutionists, on the other hand, have made an
overwhelming case for heredity accounting for us being the way we are,
five digits and all.
Still doesn't explain or account for the underlying causes
inherant in the biological mechanism.
Mutation and natural selection. It's that easy.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
18 Aug 2004 02:21:49 AM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<C7dUc.1754629$Ar.441937@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
I meant why as in the cause other than to say - 'heredity'.
Mutation and natural selection. It's that easy.
You mean its that simplistic! Dumb fundamentalist wrapping himself in
evolutionary pseudoscience. Why don't you admit that science doesn't
knwo why there are five 'digits' anymore than they know why there are
two eyes instead of one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
