Famous Atheist Converted

Religions > Atheism > Famous Atheist Converted

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Mixnmatch"
Date:	11 Jan 2007 09:52:39 PM
Object:	Famous Atheist Converted

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	11 Jan 2007 10:03:37 PM

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.
Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.
'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No. Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.
Greywolf
.

User: "Ben Kaufman"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	11 Jan 2007 10:51:45 PM

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:03:37 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.

Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.

'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No. Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.

Greywolf

How could Haggard have done what he did if he truly believed that there was a
god watching him?
Ben
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 12:33:03 AM

"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:is4eq215dh11emtk770qfiiundbvftqcvq@4ax.com...

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:03:37 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.

Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who
went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.

'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No. Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.

Greywolf

How could Haggard have done what he did if he truly believed that there
was a
god watching him?

Ben

Makes you pause and think, doesn't it? Maybe he felt that since he was a
church 'leader' he had special privileges and 'exemptions' that his 'sheep'
weren't entitled to. Who knows what runs through a depraved and deceitful
man's mind?
Greywolf
.

User: "Nosterill"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 02:22:51 AM

Ben Kaufman wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:03:37 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.

Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.

'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No. Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.

Greywolf

How could Haggard have done what he did if he truly believed that there was a
god watching him?

I don't imagine that Haggard even believes in a god. He is just a
businessman scamming the gullible.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	17 Jan 2007 07:54:36 PM

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:51:45 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:03:37 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.

Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.

'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No. Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.

Greywolf

How could Haggard have done what he did if he truly believed that there was a
god watching him?

He gets off on being watched.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 01:16:31 AM

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:51:45 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <is4eq215dh11emtk770qfiiundbvftqcvq@4ax.com>

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:03:37 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.

Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.

'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No. Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.

Greywolf

How could Haggard have done what he did if he truly believed that there was a
god watching him?

Ever read the Old Testament?
See what kind of perverted ***** "God" delights in, and Haggard looks
like a mythical angel.
God is a vicious mass murdering *****.
--
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 08:02:37 AM

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:51:45 -0500, Ben Kaufman wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:03:37 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.

Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.

'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No. Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.

Greywolf

How could Haggard have done what he did if he truly believed that there was a
god watching him?

Unless he finds being watched titillating?
(I think I just grossed myself out)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Creationists criticize evolutionists for the demeaning idea
of 'coming from apes' and say that man is more noble than
that, and then have sermons where man is called a miserable
worm worthy to be burned eternally in hell." - William Bagley
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 01:43:47 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:FsidnWkENOtgCTrYnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com...

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:51:45 -0500, Ben Kaufman wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:03:37 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

How sad. Senility sets in on a scientist who was a staunch atheist, has a
change of heart (fear of approaching death?), provides no irrefutable
scientific 'proof' for that change of heart -- but is now held up as some
sort of proof that 'God' must exist.

Okay. Time to draw up the list of famed scientist 'God' believers' who
went
from believing in the 'Almighty' (or were simply unfairly *charged* with
believing in 'God-ness') to rejecting 'Him' out of hand.

'Elizabeth', dear. Do we have enough paper left to draw up a list of
scientists who don't believe in the existence of what's-his-name? 'No.
Not
'Zeus'. *That's* it! ... 'God'.

Greywolf

How could Haggard have done what he did if he truly believed that there
was a
god watching him?

Unless he finds being watched titillating?

(I think I just grossed myself out)

That certainly grossed me out and it takes a lot! :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.

User: "Bill M"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	11 Jan 2007 07:54:36 PM

"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

In early December of 2004 the world renowned atheist author Dr. Antony Flew
at age 81, an emeritus professor of philosophy at Britain's Reading
University has said that the scientific evidence available to us today is
overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of a creator God. Flew, who was
raised Methodist became an atheist at age 15, has been an influential
champion of atheism for more than fifty years. He has argued repeatedly that
there was not enough evidence to support the notion of a creator. But Flew
( In his senility ) has changed his mind and now believes in God based on
the scientific evidence. Flew concluded that a super-intelligence is the
only plausible explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of the
universe. Flew now describes himself as a deist. A deist is someone who
believes in a God who is not actively involved in people's lives. He has
stated that he is not a Christian and does not believe in an afterlife.
However, Flew has admitted that his God could be a person from the
perspective of a being that has intelligence and purpose.
.

User: "Bill M"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 03:57:25 PM

Anthony Flew was an 81 year old inconsequential Professor of Philosophy -
not science. He was also probably in the early stages of Alzheimer's.
He claimed to believe in the existence of some god but not in the gods of
popular religions. He never supplied any objective verifiable evidence that
supported his opinion.
"Mixnmatch" <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in message
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com...

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 11:53:39 AM

In article <lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com> Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> writes:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

So, how about you, Mixnmatch: do you find this convincing?
Do you find it sufficiently convincing that, if you
were an atheist, it would make you think strongly
of converting?
In fact, I must ask: DID you find it so compelling
that it in fact did cause you to convert?
I ask that because Flew has said that "I am thinking
of a God very different from the God of the Christian",
and further that "...there is no room either for any supernatural
revelation of that God or for any transactions between that
God and individual human beings".
In other words, Flew's God is Spinoza's God, a God
who sets things in motion but has no further interest
in individual beings, human or otherwise.
So: on the strength of what you have presented to us here,
have you now converted to serving Him?
(do note that He would not care one way or the other)
-- cary
.

User: "aversiveness"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 03:29:53 PM

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com> Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> writes:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

So, how about you, Mixnmatch: do you find this convincing?

Do you find it sufficiently convincing that, if you
were an atheist, it would make you think strongly
of converting?

In fact, I must ask: DID you find it so compelling
that it in fact did cause you to convert?

I ask that because Flew has said that "I am thinking
of a God very different from the God of the Christian",
and further that "...there is no room either for any supernatural
revelation of that God or for any transactions between that
God and individual human beings".

In other words, Flew's God is Spinoza's God, a God
who sets things in motion but has no further interest
in individual beings, human or otherwise.

This whole idea of God as impersonal first cause or prime state of
existence is personally irritating to me. Why the heck to deists even
WANT to call this non-interacting, totally impersonal, phenomena a
'god'? Isn't that like calling electromagnetism a 'god'? Or the
speed of light a 'god'? Is a waterfall a fucking god?
The idea that some sort of impersonal 'first cause' of existential
materialism / thomism is God or the idea that 'Nature' is God both
leave me exasperated. Are we supposed to 'worship' these concepts? Do
they 'require' worship? What the ***** is the point of calling these
things 'God'? Just because they are awesome and mysterious? That's a
stupid reason for thinking something is a god. A black hole is awesome
and mysterious. So's the one in my *****. Worship that. I mean, crap
- isn't the number zero just about the most primal, fundamental concept
we have? Lets start calling 'nothingness' God and worship that!
Mantra: There is a God and It is Nothing. [repeat slowly several
times while striking forehead with your laptop and walking in circles
...]
Even if there IS some sort of primal 'first cause' entity - and I see
no evidence to date that there is or isn't - why the ***** would I think
of it as a 'god'? Isn't a 'god' something that has some sort of
penchant to affect things? Even if just metaphysically? I'll accept
if the definition of the thing is that it may only affect things
spiritually, in the afterlife or some other supernatural level. Like
if it is impersonal in the material world but judges the afterlife then
it would at least have a consequence of existence. But if it doesn't
affect anything, period, then I don't see the fucking point of calling
it a 'god'.
If anything, it shows a dreadful lack of imagination that, even if we
presume the existence of this sort of primal, awesome impersonal
phenomena, that we would reuse the word 'god' or 'supreme being' or
other anthropomorphish term for it.
Sorry, Cary, for the rant - obviously not pointed at you.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 04:33:05 PM

In article <1168637392.933902.96690@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "aversiveness" <aversiveness@gmail.com> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com> Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> writes:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

So, how about you, Mixnmatch: do you find this convincing?

Do you find it sufficiently convincing that, if you
were an atheist, it would make you think strongly
of converting?

In fact, I must ask: DID you find it so compelling
that it in fact did cause you to convert?

I ask that because Flew has said that "I am thinking
of a God very different from the God of the Christian",
and further that "...there is no room either for any supernatural
revelation of that God or for any transactions between that
God and individual human beings".

In other words, Flew's God is Spinoza's God, a God
who sets things in motion but has no further interest
in individual beings, human or otherwise.

This whole idea of God as impersonal first cause or prime state of
existence is personally irritating to me. Why the heck to deists even
WANT to call this non-interacting, totally impersonal, phenomena a
'god'? Isn't that like calling electromagnetism a 'god'? Or the
speed of light a 'god'? Is a waterfall a fucking god?

The idea that some sort of impersonal 'first cause' of existential
materialism / thomism is God or the idea that 'Nature' is God both
leave me exasperated. Are we supposed to 'worship' these concepts? Do
they 'require' worship? What the ***** is the point of calling these
things 'God'? Just because they are awesome and mysterious? That's a
stupid reason for thinking something is a god. A black hole is awesome
and mysterious. So's the one in my *****. Worship that. I mean, crap
- isn't the number zero just about the most primal, fundamental concept
we have? Lets start calling 'nothingness' God and worship that!

Mantra: There is a God and It is Nothing. [repeat slowly several
times while striking forehead with your laptop and walking in circles
..]

Even if there IS some sort of primal 'first cause' entity - and I see
no evidence to date that there is or isn't - why the ***** would I think
of it as a 'god'? Isn't a 'god' something that has some sort of
penchant to affect things? Even if just metaphysically? I'll accept
if the definition of the thing is that it may only affect things
spiritually, in the afterlife or some other supernatural level. Like
if it is impersonal in the material world but judges the afterlife then
it would at least have a consequence of existence. But if it doesn't
affect anything, period, then I don't see the fucking point of calling
it a 'god'.

If anything, it shows a dreadful lack of imagination that, even if we
presume the existence of this sort of primal, awesome impersonal
phenomena, that we would reuse the word 'god' or 'supreme being' or
other anthropomorphish term for it.

Sorry, Cary, for the rant - obviously not pointed at you.

It's cool; I understand.
And although I, intellectually, would never term the Isness of
All That Is (or something) as "God", emotionally I can understand the impulse
some people have in that direction. "God", for some folks, is
less about having some personal interactive spirit-buddy, and more about the
feelings of awe and wonder and, well, sacredness.
And in that sense entertaining a kind adoration, perhaps even
an overwhelming, rapturous, adoration, for The Whole Deal,
as opposed than looking for some Thing that will get you a better
job or a date for the prom -- well, I find that understandable.
Along these lines, I found Ursula Goodenough's book "The
Sacred Depths of Nature", to be a great read. Goodenough,
a rather well-known cellular biologist, writes not only
about the overwhelming wonder she feels in investigating
cells, but also about her great pleasure in singing
in the Church choir every Sunday, in enjoying the rituals
and the ceremony -- and Goodenough is a stone atheist, and makes
no bones whatever about her unshakeable atheistic views.
And you know? I think I can dig it.
-- cary
.

User: "aversiveness"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 06:02:02 PM

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <1168637392.933902.96690@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "aversiveness" <aversiveness@gmail.com> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com> Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> writes:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

So, how about you, Mixnmatch: do you find this convincing?

Do you find it sufficiently convincing that, if you
were an atheist, it would make you think strongly
of converting?

In fact, I must ask: DID you find it so compelling
that it in fact did cause you to convert?

I ask that because Flew has said that "I am thinking
of a God very different from the God of the Christian",
and further that "...there is no room either for any supernatural
revelation of that God or for any transactions between that
God and individual human beings".

In other words, Flew's God is Spinoza's God, a God
who sets things in motion but has no further interest
in individual beings, human or otherwise.

This whole idea of God as impersonal first cause or prime state of
existence is personally irritating to me. Why the heck to deists even
WANT to call this non-interacting, totally impersonal, phenomena a
'god'? Isn't that like calling electromagnetism a 'god'? Or the
speed of light a 'god'? Is a waterfall a fucking god?

The idea that some sort of impersonal 'first cause' of existential
materialism / thomism is God or the idea that 'Nature' is God both
leave me exasperated. Are we supposed to 'worship' these concepts? Do
they 'require' worship? What the ***** is the point of calling these
things 'God'? Just because they are awesome and mysterious? That's a
stupid reason for thinking something is a god. A black hole is awesome
and mysterious. So's the one in my *****. Worship that. I mean, crap
- isn't the number zero just about the most primal, fundamental concept
we have? Lets start calling 'nothingness' God and worship that!

Mantra: There is a God and It is Nothing. [repeat slowly several
times while striking forehead with your laptop and walking in circles
..]

Even if there IS some sort of primal 'first cause' entity - and I see
no evidence to date that there is or isn't - why the ***** would I think
of it as a 'god'? Isn't a 'god' something that has some sort of
penchant to affect things? Even if just metaphysically? I'll accept
if the definition of the thing is that it may only affect things
spiritually, in the afterlife or some other supernatural level. Like
if it is impersonal in the material world but judges the afterlife then
it would at least have a consequence of existence. But if it doesn't
affect anything, period, then I don't see the fucking point of calling
it a 'god'.

If anything, it shows a dreadful lack of imagination that, even if we
presume the existence of this sort of primal, awesome impersonal
phenomena, that we would reuse the word 'god' or 'supreme being' or
other anthropomorphish term for it.

Sorry, Cary, for the rant - obviously not pointed at you.

It's cool; I understand.

And although I, intellectually, would never term the Isness of
All That Is (or something) as "God", emotionally I can understand the impulse
some people have in that direction. "God", for some folks, is
less about having some personal interactive spirit-buddy, and more about the
feelings of awe and wonder and, well, sacredness.

And in that sense entertaining a kind adoration, perhaps even
an overwhelming, rapturous, adoration, for The Whole Deal,
as opposed than looking for some Thing that will get you a better
job or a date for the prom -- well, I find that understandable.

Along these lines, I found Ursula Goodenough's book "The
Sacred Depths of Nature", to be a great read. Goodenough,
a rather well-known cellular biologist, writes not only
about the overwhelming wonder she feels in investigating
cells, but also about her great pleasure in singing
in the Church choir every Sunday, in enjoying the rituals
and the ceremony -- and Goodenough is a stone atheist, and makes
no bones whatever about her unshakeable atheistic views.

And you know? I think I can dig it.

Yeah, I totally grok your point. I just needed a quick rant. Hadn't
had one in a while.
.

User: *"nemo"*
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 04:12:28 AM

In article <lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com>,
Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
One confusing, doddering old fellow "converts" from atheist to Deist and
you think this is reason for people to stop being skeptical of your
GAWD??
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	11 Jan 2007 07:22:12 PM

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369
Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame is that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.
Klazmon.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	11 Jan 2007 07:47:02 PM

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame is that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Not to mention that this has been debunked in here so many times it's
ridiculous.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/search?hl=en&group=alt.atheism&q=anthony+flew&qt_g=1
Why does every moron who posts it think we've never heard it before?
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man Sept 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 12:21:59 AM

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame is that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "G-Ride"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	12 Jan 2007 02:24:15 AM

"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E6E5E3.22215911012007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame is
that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem
seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--

Ding ding! I think we have a winner!
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	13 Jan 2007 11:46:45 PM

In article <50outfF1gprhaU1@mid.individual.net>,
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E6E5E3.22215911012007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame is
that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem
seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--

Ding ding! I think we have a winner!

Thank you!
<takes bow>
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	14 Jan 2007 03:03:45 AM

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:46:45 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F540D3.21464513012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <50outfF1gprhaU1@mid.individual.net>,
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E6E5E3.22215911012007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame is
that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem
seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--

Ding ding! I think we have a winner!

Thank you!

<takes bow>

Let's have a look at that trophy!
Hey, It's fake gold!
Oh look, there is a note concealed in the base.
Read it out to the audience.
--
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	15 Jan 2007 12:32:56 AM

In article <adsjq257meg05gqvf3cng35ad1232s7mlt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:46:45 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F540D3.21464513012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <50outfF1gprhaU1@mid.individual.net>,
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E6E5E3.22215911012007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame
is
that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem
seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--

Ding ding! I think we have a winner!

Thank you!

<takes bow>

Let's have a look at that trophy!
Hey, It's fake gold!
Oh look, there is a note concealed in the base.
Read it out to the audience.

--

Made in China. (Like everything else.)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	15 Jan 2007 01:13:26 AM

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:32:56 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-553DC0.22325614012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <adsjq257meg05gqvf3cng35ad1232s7mlt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:46:45 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F540D3.21464513012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <50outfF1gprhaU1@mid.individual.net>,
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E6E5E3.22215911012007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to fame
is
that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's problem
seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--

Ding ding! I think we have a winner!

Thank you!

<takes bow>

Let's have a look at that trophy!
Hey, It's fake gold!
Oh look, there is a note concealed in the base.
Read it out to the audience.

--

Made in China. (Like everything else.)

So, a china cup.
Where's the kettle?
--
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	16 Jan 2007 12:14:45 AM

In article <lbamq21f1p3o2mq6g7sf1s4897jb79piq1@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:32:56 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-553DC0.22325614012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <adsjq257meg05gqvf3cng35ad1232s7mlt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:46:45 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F540D3.21464513012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <50outfF1gprhaU1@mid.individual.net>,
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E6E5E3.22215911012007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until
the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to
fame
is
that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's
problem
seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--

Ding ding! I think we have a winner!

Thank you!

<takes bow>

Let's have a look at that trophy!
Hey, It's fake gold!
Oh look, there is a note concealed in the base.
Read it out to the audience.

--

Made in China. (Like everything else.)

So, a china cup.
Where's the kettle?

Off somewhere with the pot arguing about which one is black.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	16 Jan 2007 02:08:06 AM

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:14:45 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-FFCDF3.22144515012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <lbamq21f1p3o2mq6g7sf1s4897jb79piq1@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:32:56 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-553DC0.22325614012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <adsjq257meg05gqvf3cng35ad1232s7mlt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:46:45 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F540D3.21464513012007@news.giganews.com>

In article <50outfF1gprhaU1@mid.individual.net>,
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E6E5E3.22215911012007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1168566421.946631.301960@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Mixnmatch <mixnmatch122w@loran.net> wrote in
news:lf1eq25ukh1rm7fs6rk6jqs7a85k3duga6@4ax.com:

http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_atheist_converted.htm

Nope:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Curiously few around here appear to have even heard of Flew until
the
nutjob theists started throwing this around. His only claim to
fame
is
that
he coined the name of the no true scottsman fallacy. Flew's
problem
seems
to be more the onset of senility that anything else.

Klazmon.

Because they're morons?
--

Ding ding! I think we have a winner!

Thank you!

<takes bow>

Let's have a look at that trophy!
Hey, It's fake gold!
Oh look, there is a note concealed in the base.
Read it out to the audience.

--

Made in China. (Like everything else.)

So, a china cup.
Where's the kettle?

Off somewhere with the pot arguing about which one is black.

You can't fool me.
Pot is green.
--
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Famous Atheist Converted	16 Jan 2007 05:10:21 PM

In article <ju1pq2di57nsio35d78knl5gbdoct78h0t@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: