| 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: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 05:43:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:15:19 -0700, "Soren K."
<SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote:
I ask you to examine these articles very carefully.
You didn't say the magic word...
--
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: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 07:47:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:15:19 -0700, "Soren K."
<SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote:
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.
Does the "almighty god" know you stole this from somebodies web site?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 03:07:48 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.
Damn... do you really have nothing better to do that regurgitating
this old crap?
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "New10." |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 04:12:59 PM |
|
|
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 04:25:45 PM |
|
|
"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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 05:36:00 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 06:22:39 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2ocr6fF8hedrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Claytonman...Claytonman....Does What Ever A Beer Can" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 08:04:14 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:3lbUc.24285$9Y6.2157@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2ocr6fF8hedrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
And another little beige floater plops into the bozo bin!
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 06:57:07 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:3lbUc.24285$9Y6.2157@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2ocr6fF8hedrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
Thanks for proving that you're a liar, *****. Thanks and PLONK!
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 06:18:15 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:22:39 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2ocr6fF8hedrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
Ah. So you're a cowardly troll. Gotcha.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 10:23:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:22:39 +0000 in episode
<3lbUc.24285$9Y6.2157@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub>:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2ocr6fF8hedrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
Wow. Impressive evidence that.
Not.
--
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: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 05:54:24 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ybydnYHwccmv57zcRVn-pA@megapath.net...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:22:39 +0000 in episode
<3lbUc.24285$9Y6.2157@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub>:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2ocr6fF8hedrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
Wow. Impressive evidence that.
Wasn't it though? Color me underwhelmed.
Not.
Indeed
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 06:44:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:22:39 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2ocr6fF8hedrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:tD9Uc.24207$9Y6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"New10." <drnjoseph@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr9Uc.8154$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.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
Well, I am really impressed by the evidence you have provided.
--
Sev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 09:55:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:22:39 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
The material bodies are not eternal. They are created by God for
temporary
habitation by the individual souls.
Please prove this. Thanks!
Please bite me, imbecile. Thanks!
I never fail to be amazed by the deep understanding the Usenet xtian
has of his subject, or the wit and skill, with which he offers his
explanations.
--
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: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 07:27:55 PM |
|
|
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 GodŽ, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for GodŽ) 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. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which
Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 02:10:29 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Already dealt with in my other reply.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of GodŽ, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for GodŽ) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
<snip>
There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a
cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have
always existed.
This is laughable. Russell thinks that something can come into being without
a cause? He is welcome to submit his patent for a perpetual motion machine!
There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The
idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination.
The poverty of Russell's knowledge of physics, is more like it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
18 Aug 2004 01:32:12 PM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
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.
Already dealt with in my other reply.
Not true. You just restated your special pleading in different words,
"God is the only thing that can be eternal." It's still the logical
fallacy of special pleading for God. That isn't allowed. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
18 Aug 2004 02:37:35 PM |
|
|
In article <MgNUc.275377$a24.89767@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
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.
Already dealt with in my other reply.
Not true.
Truer than Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) allows.
But, as usual, Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) ignores
any arguments he does not want to answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
24 Aug 2004 12:56:54 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <MgNUc.275377$a24.89767@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
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.
Already dealt with in my other reply.
Not true.
Truer than Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) allows.
Not true at all. Dev01 just restated the special pleading in different
words, "God is the only thing that can be eternal." It's still the
logical fallacy of special pleading for God. That isn't allowed. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
24 Aug 2004 10:07:02 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:GjLWc.36589$9d6.15496@attbi_s54...
Virgil wrote:
In article <MgNUc.275377$a24.89767@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
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.
Already dealt with in my other reply.
Not true.
Truer than Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) allows.
Not true at all. Dev01 just restated the special pleading in different
words, "God is the only thing that can be eternal." It's still the logical
fallacy of special pleading for God. That isn't allowed. Try again.
Please cite the post in which I stated or implied that "God is the only
thing that can be eternal".
Again, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to start thinking and reading
carefully.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
24 Aug 2004 07:59:50 PM |
|
|
In article <GjLWc.36589$9d6.15496@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <MgNUc.275377$a24.89767@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
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.
Already dealt with in my other reply.
Not true.
Truer than Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) allows.
Not true at all. Dev01 just restated the special pleading in different
words, "God is the only thing that can be eternal." It's still the
logical fallacy of special pleading for God. That isn't allowed. Try again.
Special pleading for the case that gods are impossible IS allowed, but
that a god might exist is not allowed?
Anyone so biased is incapable of recognizing facts or truth in anything
that does not fit his own bias, or recognizing falsehood or fallacy in
anything that does fit.
Therefore, Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) cannot be
trusted to be honest in anything. he will be lying even when he thinks
he is telling truth. There is no truth in him, only bias.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
03 Sep 2004 11:33:21 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-B31804.18595024082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
In article <GjLWc.36589$9d6.15496@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <MgNUc.275377$a24.89767@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Already dealt with in my other reply.
Not true.
Truer than Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) allows.
Not true at all. Dev01 just restated the special pleading in different
words, "God is the only thing that can be eternal." It's still the
logical fallacy of special pleading for God. That isn't allowed. Try again.
Special pleading for the case that gods are impossible IS allowed, but
that a god might exist is not allowed?
Anyone so biased is incapable of recognizing facts or truth in anything
that does not fit his own bias, or recognizing falsehood or fallacy in
anything that does fit.
Therefore, Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) cannot be
trusted to be honest in anything. he will be lying even when he thinks
he is telling truth. There is no truth in him, only bias.
Still dancing with the devil, Virgil?
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 01:33:14 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
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.
Not so. The argument is that everything which is not eternally existing must
have a creator. This must be the fact, since nothing comes into existence
out of nothing, i.e. nothing can "create itself" (which was my original
point). Therefore, if there is something that has not always existed, it
must have been created. Hence it has a creator.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
18 Aug 2004 01:27:51 PM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
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.
Not so. The argument is that everything which is not eternally existing must
have a creator. ...
And God among all things is the only thing that can be eternal? That is
just a restatement of your logical fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
"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. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which
Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
18 Aug 2004 02:33:49 PM |
|
|
In article <HcNUc.279857$%_6.101344@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Chris Devol wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52...
Chris Devol wrote:
something has always existed which is uncreated.
Your argument is that everything must have a creator except God? That's
fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
Not so. The argument is that everything which is not eternally existing
must
have a creator. ...
And God among all things is the only thing that can be eternal? That is
just a restatement of your logical fallacy of special pleading, old boy.
This response shows that Dixit, AKA Septic (of the Magically Invisible
Space Pixies), id either illiterate or delusional, as the argument very
pointedly does not say what Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space
Pixies) claims it says. The argument itself may be faulty, but, if so,
not for the reason which Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space
Pixies) cites.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
16 Aug 2004 07:40:15 PM |
|
|
In article <ficUc.26300$TI1.18328@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
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
An unbiased reader will come to different conclusions from reading this
than Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) tries to force on
people.
"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. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like us who can actually read
what is said there rather than seeing only what agrees with one's own
prejudices.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 06:15:50 AM |
|
|
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 GodŽ, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for GodŽ) 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.
--
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[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
The church does not determine what Scripture teaches;
Scripture determines what the church teaches.
If a tradition or experience is contrary to the
teachings of Scripture, it is not of the Lord.
Reason is a significant authority. But it too,
must be placed under the dominion of Scripture.
In other words, we cannot seek Biblical truths,
while questioning the authority of the Bible.
-----= 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: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
20 Aug 2004 08:00:46 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<q2q3i0p8p5mepnujr69arjmm58b18nf54m@4ax.com>...
Stevie forgot that design and language require intelligence.
Support your argument or withdraw it. No-one's going to accept empty
blather simply because someone arrogantly blathers it. Since the word
"design" presupposes intelligence, what you wrote above is a
tautology. You're saying nothing more than "a designed object
requires a designer", which is entirely disconnected from the issue of
evolution until and unless you can demonstrate a solid, supported case
that there truly is design in nature.
I'd be happy to debate this issue with you if you feel you can make
your case rationally and intelligently with supported argument. Are
you prepared to have a formal debate on this topic? Or do you prefer
to continue with your standard drive-by vomit on Usenet?
DNA definitely contains a language
Unsupported and/or undefined conjecture.
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.
But the same "rationale" you use to pretend the universe exhibits
design also applies to your god. If only intelligence can create
something that appears so perfectly "designed", then only intelligence
could have created something as "ideally designed" as a god. So who
designed your god? And who designed the designer of your god? Etc.,
etc., ad infinitum.
On the other hand, if there can be something as complex as a god which
requires no designer, then your chain of "logic" breaks down
completely! If a complex undesigned god can exist, where is your
"rationale" for pretending a universe could not exist without having
been designed?
Get it now?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 10:20:50 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
...God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
That's just logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, mon frčre.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute ones theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
If you can demonstrate anything not physical you win $1,000,000.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
There is no such thing as GodŽ, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as GodŽ, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to the
fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of GodŽ,
which Russell points out.
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes as you do that
there might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
argument for GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
that does not run into this fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in
the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST |
17 Aug 2004 05:59:50 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53...
Pastor Dave wrote:
...God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.
That's just logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, mon frčre.
Incorrect. It's not an hypothesis at all. It's a standard definition, "God
is not physical", followed by an inference "and therefore needs no physical
cause".
You need to go back to school.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
