| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
09 Jul 2005 04:13:20 PM |
| Object: |
Our Faith-Based Train Rides |
Our Faith-Based Train Rides
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/opinion/09vowell.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8674
By SARAH VOWELL
Does it really make sense for Wyoming to get more money per resident
from the Homeland Security Department than New York?
Let's Have This Fight
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070801685.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.6659
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Saturday, July 9, 2005; Page A15
Should a temporary majority of 50.7 percent have control over the
entire United States government? Should 49.3 percent of Americans have
no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next generation?
The Road to Riches
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5ba95f4634dec9cd
and thread
The Road to Riches
http://tinyurl.com/55nzo
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/59c28cd6dfe6f60f
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
24 Jul 2005 05:10:00 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:23:48 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:hl15e1pf1l88c51aksnj12h3boop95rqa3@4ax.com:
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
If something doesn't exist, how much evidence is there that it does?
That depends entirely on what "it" is.
This kind of Clintonian word-mincing isn't going to work with us.
Provide the evidence that liquid, metal gummi bears don't exist,
There have probably been some, and may be some right now.
You're approaching solipsism. Prove that metal gummi bears don't exist.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
25 Jul 2005 09:52:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:10:00 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:23:48 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:hl15e1pf1l88c51aksnj12h3boop95rqa3@4ax.com:
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
If something doesn't exist, how much evidence is there that it does?
That depends entirely on what "it" is.
This kind of Clintonian word-mincing isn't going to work with us.
If you don't want to explain which "it" you're referring to just say
so, but don't act like I'm out of line for wanting to know.
Provide the evidence that liquid, metal gummi bears don't exist,
There have probably been some, and may be some right now.
You're approaching solipsism.
Nothing like it.
Prove that metal gummi bears don't exist.
There probably are some, which is why I said what I said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
25 Jul 2005 07:28:13 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:10:00 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:23:48 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:hl15e1pf1l88c51aksnj12h3boop95rqa3@4ax.com:
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
If something doesn't exist, how much evidence is there that it does?
That depends entirely on what "it" is.
This kind of Clintonian word-mincing isn't going to work with us.
If you don't want to explain which "it" you're referring to just say
so, but don't act like I'm out of line for wanting to know.
If you want to know what was meant by "it," it means anything that is
being described. In this case, the "it" is God.
Provide the evidence that liquid, metal gummi bears don't exist,
There have probably been some, and may be some right now.
You're approaching solipsism.
Nothing like it.
Explain.
Prove that metal gummi bears don't exist.
There probably are some, which is why I said what I said.
Prove that they exist, then.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
28 Jul 2005 07:26:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:28:13 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:10:00 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:23:48 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
Provide the evidence that liquid, metal gummi bears don't exist,
There have probably been some, and may be some right now.
You're approaching solipsism.
Nothing like it.
Explain.
Considering the possible existence of metal gummy bears has
nothing to do with solipsism.
Prove that metal gummi bears don't exist.
There probably are some, which is why I said what I said.
Prove that they exist, then.
I didn't say they do. I said there probably are some. I there
aren't, that's fine too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
28 Jul 2005 07:54:21 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:28:13 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:10:00 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:23:48 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
Provide the evidence that liquid, metal gummi bears don't exist,
There have probably been some, and may be some right now.
You're approaching solipsism.
Nothing like it.
Explain.
Considering the possible existence of metal gummy bears has
nothing to do with solipsism.
Except that solipsism is about the belief that nothing exists beyond the
self; and that everything else is a belief. Therefore, belief that
metal gummi bears existing is approaching solipsism (though we're not
quite there yet.)
Prove that metal gummi bears don't exist.
There probably are some, which is why I said what I said.
Prove that they exist, then.
I didn't say they do. I said there probably are some. I there
aren't, that's fine too.
I say there are none, because, until evidence to the contrary arises,
they cannot be said to exist, because all existence demands evidence.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
23 Jul 2005 07:00:23 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
Irrelevant. We still equate God with Santa Claus.
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
Nor do we have to. The claim was made that God exists and now the claim
must be substantiated.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
24 Jul 2005 12:07:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:00:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
Irrelevant.
No. The fact that you don't have any idea whether or not God exists
is very relevant in itself, and must always be taken into consideration.
The fact that you feel the existence of Santa Claus is as likely as the
existence of a being who had a deliberate part in our creation is also
very relevant, and puts your opinion about it in the near-retard catagory,
imo.
We still equate God with Santa Claus.
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
Nor do we have to.
LOL...lucky for you, eh?
The claim was made that God exists
Please present the example(s) that you're bothered by.
and now the claim
must be substantiated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
24 Jul 2005 05:08:46 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:00:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
Irrelevant.
No. The fact that you don't have any idea whether or not God exists
is very relevant in itself, and must always be taken into consideration.
No, it doesn't. The claim that the moon is made of cheese should never
be taken into consideration.
The fact that you feel the existence of Santa Claus is as likely as the
existence of a being who had a deliberate part in our creation is also
very relevant, and puts your opinion about it in the near-retard catagory,
imo.
Your opinion is irrelevant. Santa Claus (the flying reindeer, fat man
down chimneys, etc.) claim is as credible as God (the creator of the
universe, morals teacher, etc.) is. That is, not credile at all.
However, you may prove me wrong. Show me evidence of a flying sleigh.
Shwo me evidence of a God creator.
We still equate God with Santa Claus.
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
Nor do we have to.
LOL...lucky for you, eh?
And if I claim something exists, and you disclaim it, you do not have to
provide any proof of its nonexistence. I have to prove that what I
claim exists exists. The burden of proof is always on the positive
claimer, and is never on the negative claimer.
The claim was made that God exists
Please present the example(s) that you're bothered by.
Did I say I was "bothered?" No, I'm not bothered by the claim.
However, if you expect me to buy into this fanciful story of God, I must
see evidence of its existence.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
25 Jul 2005 09:51:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:08:46 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:00:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
Irrelevant.
No. The fact that you don't have any idea whether or not God exists
is very relevant in itself, and must always be taken into consideration.
No, it doesn't.
I will keep it in mind, even if you're totally unaware of it.
The claim that the moon is made of cheese should never
be taken into consideration.
The fact that you feel the existence of Santa Claus is as likely as the
existence of a being who had a deliberate part in our creation is also
very relevant, and puts your opinion about it in the near-retard catagory,
imo.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
Not to me.
Santa Claus (the flying reindeer, fat man
down chimneys, etc.) claim is as credible as God (the creator of the
universe, morals teacher, etc.) is. That is, not credile at all.
However, you may prove me wrong.
[...]
Shwo me evidence of a God creator.
Life is evidence to me, even if you're totally unaware of it.
We still equate God with Santa Claus.
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
Nor do we have to.
LOL...lucky for you, eh?
And if I claim something exists, and you disclaim it, you do not have to
provide any proof of its nonexistence. I have to prove that what I
claim exists exists. The burden of proof is always on the positive
claimer, and is never on the negative claimer.
It may well never be acknowledged by the negative claimer, but
you still have as much responsibility to demonstrate that you know
what you're talking about as anyone else does. You have no clue.
The claim was made that God exists
Please present the example(s) that you're bothered by.
Did I say I was "bothered?" No, I'm not bothered by the claim.
However, if you expect me to buy into this fanciful story of God, I must
see evidence of its existence.
LOL!!! If God exists, you've seen it every day of your life and still
don't know what you're looking at. What makes you think today
might be different? LOL......
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
25 Jul 2005 07:26:26 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:08:46 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:00:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
Irrelevant.
No. The fact that you don't have any idea whether or not God exists
is very relevant in itself, and must always be taken into consideration.
No, it doesn't.
I will keep it in mind, even if you're totally unaware of it.
You do that.
The claim that the moon is made of cheese should never
be taken into consideration.
The fact that you feel the existence of Santa Claus is as likely as the
existence of a being who had a deliberate part in our creation is also
very relevant, and puts your opinion about it in the near-retard catagory,
imo.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
Not to me.
Good for you.
Santa Claus (the flying reindeer, fat man
down chimneys, etc.) claim is as credible as God (the creator of the
universe, morals teacher, etc.) is. That is, not credile at all.
However, you may prove me wrong.
[...]
Shwo me evidence of a God creator.
Life is evidence to me, even if you're totally unaware of it.
Then it is pretty weak evidence. In fact, it's the weakest of weak
evidence, all hearsay and circumstantial blather.
We still equate God with Santa Claus.
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
Nor do we have to.
LOL...lucky for you, eh?
And if I claim something exists, and you disclaim it, you do not have to
provide any proof of its nonexistence. I have to prove that what I
claim exists exists. The burden of proof is always on the positive
claimer, and is never on the negative claimer.
It may well never be acknowledged by the negative claimer, but
you still have as much responsibility to demonstrate that you know
what you're talking about as anyone else does. You have no clue.
No. The negative claimer never has the responsibility to anything.
When folks come here and negatively claim that evolution isn't true, it
us up to us (the positive claimants) to produce evidence.
And we have.
The claim was made that God exists
Please present the example(s) that you're bothered by.
Did I say I was "bothered?" No, I'm not bothered by the claim.
However, if you expect me to buy into this fanciful story of God, I must
see evidence of its existence.
LOL!!! If God exists, you've seen it every day of your life and still
don't know what you're looking at. What makes you think today
might be different? LOL......
Sorry, but there are other more rational and realistic explanations for
existence.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
28 Jul 2005 07:26:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:26:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:08:46 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:00:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
Irrelevant.
No. The fact that you don't have any idea whether or not God exists
is very relevant in itself, and must always be taken into consideration.
No, it doesn't.
I will keep it in mind, even if you're totally unaware of it.
You do that.
The claim that the moon is made of cheese should never
be taken into consideration.
The fact that you feel the existence of Santa Claus is as likely as the
existence of a being who had a deliberate part in our creation is also
very relevant, and puts your opinion about it in the near-retard catagory,
imo.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
Not to me.
Good for you.
Santa Claus (the flying reindeer, fat man
down chimneys, etc.) claim is as credible as God (the creator of the
universe, morals teacher, etc.) is. That is, not credile at all.
However, you may prove me wrong.
[...]
Shwo me evidence of a God creator.
Life is evidence to me, even if you're totally unaware of it.
Then it is pretty weak evidence. In fact, it's the weakest of weak
evidence, all hearsay and circumstantial blather.
That's one possibility.
We still equate God with Santa Claus.
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
Nor do we have to.
LOL...lucky for you, eh?
And if I claim something exists, and you disclaim it, you do not have to
provide any proof of its nonexistence. I have to prove that what I
claim exists exists. The burden of proof is always on the positive
claimer, and is never on the negative claimer.
It may well never be acknowledged by the negative claimer, but
you still have as much responsibility to demonstrate that you know
what you're talking about as anyone else does. You have no clue.
No. The negative claimer never has the responsibility to anything.
When folks come here and negatively claim that evolution isn't true, it
us up to us (the positive claimants) to produce evidence.
And we have.
The claim was made that God exists
Please present the example(s) that you're bothered by.
Did I say I was "bothered?" No, I'm not bothered by the claim.
However, if you expect me to buy into this fanciful story of God, I must
see evidence of its existence.
LOL!!! If God exists, you've seen it every day of your life and still
don't know what you're looking at. What makes you think today
might be different? LOL......
Sorry, but there are other more rational and realistic explanations for
existence.
Explain them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
28 Jul 2005 07:52:23 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:26:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
<snip for brevity>
Sorry, but there are other more rational and realistic explanations for
existence.
Explain them.
Big Bang. Ekpyrotic Universe Theory. String Theory. All are still
more rational and realistic than this "Creator" thing.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
31 Jul 2005 03:20:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:52:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:26:26 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
<snip for brevity>
Sorry, but there are other more rational and realistic explanations for
existence.
Explain them.
Big Bang.
That's not an explanation, and even if we were to pretend it is, you
would still be left unable to explain where the material that exploded
came from.
Ekpyrotic Universe Theory. String Theory. All are still
more rational and realistic than this "Creator" thing.
If God exists, you have simply referred to things he may have made
use of to bring about the creation. So far you have presented no more
rational or realistic explanation. Feel free to make another attempt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
23 Jul 2005 02:50:14 PM |
|
|
duh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
He already provided twice as much evidence as you have.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? |
24 Jul 2005 11:54:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:50:14 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
duh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:10:25 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:27 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:49:24 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Anybody who says the following is either a liar or an idiot; it
doesn't matter which because the result is the same:
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
"Santa Claus might exist too.
If you truly believe there is just as good a chance that Santa
Claus exists as there is that God exists,then I consider you to be
about as ignorant and also stupid in that area as it's possible to get.
Congratulations!
Considering the evidence they both have the same chance of existing
which is zilch point ***** for both.
This is a standard theist combination of stupidity and dishonesty, the
kind that gets in the way of communication: the idiot can't grasp that
we are telling him that to us, outside his religion, his God is no
different than Santa Claus.
What you idiotically can't grasp, is the fact that I have absolutely
no reason at all to take your word for it. None!
You have to be either remarkably stupid, or deliberately pretending to
be, to twist that into the opposite: that we treat Santa Claus like is
God.
Whichever it is, the result is the same. All we see is his sheer,
wilful stupidity.
That's all that YOU see. I see that you have offered me no
reason to consider you any sort of authority on whether or not
God exists, and I am certain that you can't provide any.
He already provided twice as much evidence as you have.
Provide examples of it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
18 Jul 2005 12:02:02 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.agnosticism.]
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:33:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:23:08 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:06:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins dh@. wrote:
You're suggesting that if people don't like the influence that atheists
are imposing on their lives because of the atheists' insane religious paranoia,
they should move to a country that imposes some other religious beliefs.
This country was founded on religious freedom, not on maniacal atheistic
restrictions. Atheists are getting away with imposing their religious problems
on everyone else, which is the sort of thing this country was founded in
large part to escape from. Atheists have contaminated our country with
their religious problems, and there is no doubt about it.
I had never realized before the disproportionate influence
that atheists (3-9% of the US population, according to
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html ) have
on American politics.
This explains why politicians are falling over themselves
courting the atheist vote: all those measures to remove "under God"
from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove "In God We Trust" from US
currency,
If it gets changed, the only reasonable thing to replace it with
would have to be "In Atheists We Trust", since we'd have to
replace faith in God with faith in Atheists in order to make such
a change.
I believe Andrew was being sarcastic, the point being that atheists are such a
small minority in the US that politicians don't consider us worth bothering
with.
In any case, you'd be better off having faith in atheists than in God. At least
we exist. <G>
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
The Egyptians, upon whom most of the bible stories are based, had several
gods. I guess it is possible that one or more of those gods exist too. The
Gnostic's believe that the creator is a demiurge, that Sophia is a god that
allowed it to happen, and that the true father god is not the same as the
creator god. I guess anyone of those could exist. Then of course, we have
Allah from the Quran who could exist. We could go on and on. Which group of
ignorant and superstitious fables does one want to believe is the true one;
especially since many of the later ones are rewrites of the Egyptian and
Babylonian fables.
--
Mike.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
17 Jul 2005 09:45:02 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote in news:3h5ld1lhi3pr807flgvfkcdr134li303ol@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:23:08 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:06:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins dh@. wrote:
You're suggesting that if people don't like the influence that
atheists
are imposing on their lives because of the atheists' insane
religious paranoia, they should move to a country that imposes
some other religious beliefs. This country was founded on
religious freedom, not on maniacal atheistic restrictions.
Atheists are getting away with imposing their religious problems
on everyone else, which is the sort of thing this country was
founded in large part to escape from. Atheists have contaminated
our country with their religious problems, and there is no doubt
about it.
I had never realized before the disproportionate influence
that atheists (3-9% of the US population, according to
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html )
have on American politics.
This explains why politicians are falling over themselves
courting the atheist vote: all those measures to remove "under God"
from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove "In God We Trust" from US
currency,
If it gets changed, the only reasonable thing to replace it with
would have to be "In Atheists We Trust", since we'd have to
replace faith in God with faith in Atheists in order to make such
a change.
I believe Andrew was being sarcastic, the point being that atheists
are such a small minority in the US that politicians don't consider us
worth bothering with.
In any case, you'd be better off having faith in atheists than in God.
At least we exist. <G>
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
And we don't think much of fools like you who don't know what atheism
really means.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
18 Jul 2005 11:36:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:45:02 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:3h5ld1lhi3pr807flgvfkcdr134li303ol@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:23:08 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:06:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins dh@. wrote:
You're suggesting that if people don't like the influence that
atheists
are imposing on their lives because of the atheists' insane
religious paranoia, they should move to a country that imposes
some other religious beliefs. This country was founded on
religious freedom, not on maniacal atheistic restrictions.
Atheists are getting away with imposing their religious problems
on everyone else, which is the sort of thing this country was
founded in large part to escape from. Atheists have contaminated
our country with their religious problems, and there is no doubt
about it.
I had never realized before the disproportionate influence
that atheists (3-9% of the US population, according to
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html )
have on American politics.
This explains why politicians are falling over themselves
courting the atheist vote: all those measures to remove "under God"
from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove "In God We Trust" from US
currency,
If it gets changed, the only reasonable thing to replace it with
would have to be "In Atheists We Trust", since we'd have to
replace faith in God with faith in Atheists in order to make such
a change.
I believe Andrew was being sarcastic, the point being that atheists
are such a small minority in the US that politicians don't consider us
worth bothering with.
In any case, you'd be better off having faith in atheists than in God.
At least we exist. <G>
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility, and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I think
as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a tiny
religious faith as atheists surely do.
And we don't think much of fools like you who don't know what atheism
really means.
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from
Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine
that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=0&y=0
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Now we know. LOL...more likely now I still know, and now you still
can't understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
18 Jul 2005 08:45:00 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote in news:8imnd190ba8j5eas4ks1b2m7at00nd2ktv@4ax.com:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:45:02 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:3h5ld1lhi3pr807flgvfkcdr134li303ol@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:23:08 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:06:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins dh@. wrote:
You're suggesting that if people don't like the influence
that atheists
are imposing on their lives because of the atheists' insane
religious paranoia, they should move to a country that imposes
some other religious beliefs. This country was founded on
religious freedom, not on maniacal atheistic restrictions.
Atheists are getting away with imposing their religious problems
on everyone else, which is the sort of thing this country was
founded in large part to escape from. Atheists have contaminated
our country with their religious problems, and there is no doubt
about it.
I had never realized before the disproportionate influence
that atheists (3-9% of the US population, according to
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html )
have on American politics.
This explains why politicians are falling over themselves
courting the atheist vote: all those measures to remove "under
God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove "In God We Trust" from
US currency,
If it gets changed, the only reasonable thing to replace it
with
would have to be "In Atheists We Trust", since we'd have to
replace faith in God with faith in Atheists in order to make such
a change.
I believe Andrew was being sarcastic, the point being that atheists
are such a small minority in the US that politicians don't consider
us worth bothering with.
In any case, you'd be better off having faith in atheists than in
God. At least we exist. <G>
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility,
and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I
think as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a
tiny religious faith as atheists surely do.
And we don't think much of fools like you who don't know what atheism
really means.
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from
Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine
that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=0&y=
0 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Now we know. LOL...more likely now I still know, and now you still
can't understand.
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
21 Jul 2005 08:09:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:45:00 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:8imnd190ba8j5eas4ks1b2m7at00nd2ktv@4ax.com:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:45:02 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:3h5ld1lhi3pr807flgvfkcdr134li303ol@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:23:08 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:06:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins dh@. wrote:
You're suggesting that if people don't like the influence
that atheists
are imposing on their lives because of the atheists' insane
religious paranoia, they should move to a country that imposes
some other religious beliefs. This country was founded on
religious freedom, not on maniacal atheistic restrictions.
Atheists are getting away with imposing their religious problems
on everyone else, which is the sort of thing this country was
founded in large part to escape from. Atheists have contaminated
our country with their religious problems, and there is no doubt
about it.
I had never realized before the disproportionate influence
that atheists (3-9% of the US population, according to
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html )
have on American politics.
This explains why politicians are falling over themselves
courting the atheist vote: all those measures to remove "under
God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove "In God We Trust" from
US currency,
If it gets changed, the only reasonable thing to replace it
with
would have to be "In Atheists We Trust", since we'd have to
replace faith in God with faith in Atheists in order to make such
a change.
I believe Andrew was being sarcastic, the point being that atheists
are such a small minority in the US that politicians don't consider
us worth bothering with.
In any case, you'd be better off having faith in atheists than in
God. At least we exist. <G>
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility,
and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I
think as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such a
tiny religious faith as atheists surely do.
And we don't think much of fools like you who don't know what atheism
really means.
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from
Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine
that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=0&y=
0 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Now we know. LOL...more likely now I still know, and now you still
can't understand.
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
Disbelief is still a belief. Don't be fooled into thinking it's not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
21 Jul 2005 09:51:12 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote in news:5ph0e198rvjq3r0qak0jf9kar2gdm2ppct@4ax.com:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:45:00 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:8imnd190ba8j5eas4ks1b2m7at00nd2ktv@4ax.com:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:45:02 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:3h5ld1lhi3pr807flgvfkcdr134li303ol@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:23:08 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:06:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins dh@. wrote:
You're suggesting that if people don't like the influence
that atheists
are imposing on their lives because of the atheists' insane
religious paranoia, they should move to a country that imposes
some other religious beliefs. This country was founded on
religious freedom, not on maniacal atheistic restrictions.
Atheists are getting away with imposing their religious
problems on everyone else, which is the sort of thing this
country was founded in large part to escape from. Atheists
have contaminated our country with their religious problems,
and there is no doubt about it.
I had never realized before the disproportionate influence
that atheists (3-9% of the US population, according to
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html )
have on American politics.
This explains why politicians are falling over themselves
courting the atheist vote: all those measures to remove "under
God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove "In God We Trust"
from US currency,
If it gets changed, the only reasonable thing to replace it
with
would have to be "In Atheists We Trust", since we'd have to
replace faith in God with faith in Atheists in order to make such
a change.
I believe Andrew was being sarcastic, the point being that
atheists are such a small minority in the US that politicians
don't consider us worth bothering with.
In any case, you'd be better off having faith in atheists than in
God. At least we exist. <G>
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility,
and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I
think as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such
a tiny religious faith as atheists surely do.
And we don't think much of fools like you who don't know what
atheism really means.
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from
Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine
that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=0&
y= 0 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Now we know. LOL...more likely now I still know, and now you
still
can't understand.
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
Disbelief is still a belief. Don't be fooled into thinking it's
not.
So, how much faith does it take to "disbelieve" in unicorns or elves or
Zeus or Odin...?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
23 Jul 2005 01:03:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:51:12 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:5ph0e198rvjq3r0qak0jf9kar2gdm2ppct@4ax.com:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:45:00 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:8imnd190ba8j5eas4ks1b2m7at00nd2ktv@4ax.com:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:45:02 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote in news:3h5ld1lhi3pr807flgvfkcdr134li303ol@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:23:08 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:06:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins dh@. wrote:
You're suggesting that if people don't like the influence
that atheists
are imposing on their lives because of the atheists' insane
religious paranoia, they should move to a country that imposes
some other religious beliefs. This country was founded on
religious freedom, not on maniacal atheistic restrictions.
Atheists are getting away with imposing their religious
problems on everyone else, which is the sort of thing this
country was founded in large part to escape from. Atheists
have contaminated our country with their religious problems,
and there is no doubt about it.
I had never realized before the disproportionate influence
that atheists (3-9% of the US population, according to
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html )
have on American politics.
This explains why politicians are falling over themselves
courting the atheist vote: all those measures to remove "under
God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove "In God We Trust"
from US currency,
If it gets changed, the only reasonable thing to replace it
with
would have to be "In Atheists We Trust", since we'd have to
replace faith in God with faith in Atheists in order to make such
a change.
I believe Andrew was being sarcastic, the point being that
atheists are such a small minority in the US that politicians
don't consider us worth bothering with.
In any case, you'd be better off having faith in atheists than in
God. At least we exist. <G>
God might exist too. Atheists don't consider that possibility,
and
don't want the possibility to be presented in public schools. I
think as little of them as I do of anyone else who clings to such
a tiny religious faith as atheists surely do.
And we don't think much of fools like you who don't know what
atheism really means.
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from
Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine
that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=0&
y= 0 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Now we know. LOL...more likely now I still know, and now you
still
can't understand.
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
You need faith in your belief that God does not exist.
Disbelief is still a belief. Don't be fooled into thinking it's
not.
So, how much faith does it take to "disbelieve" in unicorns or elves or
Zeus or Odin...?
As much as it takes to have faith in your own beliefs or disbeliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ph˙ltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
24 Jul 2005 03:27:32 AM |
|
|
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ui15e1dka24spigt2vn698m02j6q3gteco@4ax.com:
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
You need faith in your belief that God does not exist.
You're a fucking retard.
Faith is believing without evidence or proof. But I have KNOWLEDGE of what an
idiot YOU are, your posts are the EVIDENCE.
--
Ph˙ltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
24 Jul 2005 12:06:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:27:32 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ui15e1dka24spigt2vn698m02j6q3gteco@4ax.com:
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
You need faith in your belief that God does not exist.
You're a fucking retard.
Is that your childish way of saying that you don't? If not,
what is it your childish way of saying?
Faith is believing without evidence or proof.
You freaked at the word "faith". But if you're really an atheist you
have to have faith in your own belief or you're not really an atheist,
you're just a fucking half-*****, lying about being one. LOL...that would
be similar to "Satanists" who are no more than atheistic followers of
the liar LaVey...lol... Anyway, this may be way over your head, but
faith has more than one meaning (you're sweating, and beginning to
***** yourself now, aren't you?) and as we can see:
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides;
akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
[...]
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a
system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith&x=0&y=0
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
faith, i.e. belief:
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa,
from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
[...]
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
[...]
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of
something offered for acceptance.
[...]
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=belief
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
is necessary in order for you to be an atheist.
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist&x=0&y=0
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
If you don't have the faith that God does not exist, you're only a wannabe
atheist but you're not one...you can take a *****, but you can't walk the walk.
But I have KNOWLEDGE of what an
idiot YOU are, your posts are the EVIDENCE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ph˙ltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
25 Jul 2005 10:34:02 AM |
|
|
dh@. astounded us with: news:qji7e1li5t9cf2c56n3kqqbcith374ebho@4ax.com:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:27:32 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ui15e1dka24spigt2vn698m02j6q3gteco@4ax.com:
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
You need faith in your belief that God does not exist.
You're a fucking retard.
Is that your childish way of saying that you don't? If not,
what is it your childish way of saying?
Faith is believing without evidence or proof.
You freaked at the word "faith". But if you're really an atheist you
have to have faith in your own belief or you're not really an atheist,
So, yet again, we have an arrogant fool telling atheists what atheism is
all about.
There is NO god, idiot, I have proof!
--
Ph˙ltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
25 Jul 2005 10:38:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:34:02 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
dh@. astounded us with: news:qji7e1li5t9cf2c56n3kqqbcith374ebho@4ax.com:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:27:32 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ui15e1dka24spigt2vn698m02j6q3gteco@4ax.com:
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
You need faith in your belief that God does not exist.
You're a fucking retard.
Is that your childish way of saying that you don't? If not,
what is it your childish way of saying?
Faith is believing without evidence or proof.
You freaked at the word "faith". But if you're really an atheist you
have to have faith in your own belief or you're not really an atheist,
So, yet again, we have an arrogant fool telling atheists what atheism is
all about.
There is NO god, idiot, I have proof!
Please share it so I can quit thinking about this stupid ***** then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ph˙ltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
26 Jul 2005 08:11:51 AM |
|
|
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ar1ae1p30cms245nhtp67ikripcsrlijqb@4ax.com:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:34:02 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
dh@. astounded us with: news:qji7e1li5t9cf2c56n3kqqbcith374ebho@4ax.com:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:27:32 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ui15e1dka24spigt2vn698m02j6q3gteco@
4ax.com:
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
You need faith in your belief that God does not exist.
You're a fucking retard.
Is that your childish way of saying that you don't? If not,
what is it your childish way of saying?
Faith is believing without evidence or proof.
You freaked at the word "faith". But if you're really an atheist
you
have to have faith in your own belief or you're not really an atheist,
So, yet again, we have an arrogant fool telling atheists what atheism is
all about.
There is NO god, idiot, I have proof!
Please share it so I can quit thinking about this stupid ***** then.
NO, ***** ya! Find the proof yourself, lazy *****!
Come up with testable, repeatable proofs. You won't, you can't.
--
Ph˙ltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "In Atheists We Trust"? (was: Re: Our Faith-Based Train Rides) |
28 Jul 2005 07:26:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:11:51 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ar1ae1p30cms245nhtp67ikripcsrlijqb@4ax.com:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:34:02 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
dh@. astounded us with: news:qji7e1li5t9cf2c56n3kqqbcith374ebho@4ax.com:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:27:32 GMT, "Ph˙ltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote:
[posted and mailed]
dh@. astounded us with: news:ui15e1dka24spigt2vn698m02j6q3gteco@
4ax.com:
So, where's the need for religious "faith" by atheists?
You need faith in your belief that God does not exist.
You're a fucking retard.
Is that your childish way of saying that you don't? If not,
what is it your childish way of saying?
Faith is believing without evidence or proof.
You freaked at the word "faith". But if you're really an atheist
you
have to have faith in your own belief or you're not really an atheist,
So, yet again, we have an arrogant fool telling atheists what atheism is
all about.
There is NO god, idiot, I have proof!
Please share it so I can quit thinking about this stupid ***** then.
NO,
LOL...that's because you have none.
***** ya!
You said that, because your ashamed that you have none.
Absolutely none at all.
Find the proof yourself, lazy *****!
You said that, because you're desperately hoping I will find some and
share it with you. But there is none. I know it, but you don't. You hope
there is some, and hope I'll present it for you.
Come up with testable, repeatable proofs. You won't, you can't.
No one can. Not me. Not you. No one. There is | | | | | | | | | | | | |
