Religions > Atheism > Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill Baker" |
| Date: |
18 Oct 2003 01:50:49 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:26:50 -0700, (Sister Lurlean
Tucker) wrote in message
news:<7908c278.0310172226.6783138@posting.google.com>:
curtsybear <Curtis@Sieber.com> wrote in message
news:<bmkfs9$mit49$2@ID-75234.news.uni-berlin.de>, quoting somebody...
I read several different bibles and go back to Aramaic for NT and
Hebrew for OT.
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
<snip>
I'm rather curious about how to say "My hovercraft is full of eels",
myself.
That would be "Rachaphathi hi meleath-tzelophachim". That's actually
the easiest one you've asked for yet! What are you gonna do for me now?
R-E-P-E-N-T??? That first of them Hebrew words is built on a
participle that appears in Deuteronomy 32:11. Don't NONE of you all be
telling me all the answers ain't in the Bible!
OK, then, according to the Bible, which ISP should True Christians(tm) be
using?
Our resident Biblical Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew expert seems to be on
the taciturn side these days. I sure hope he's alright and can help me
figure out the proper translation for "we've just elected a moviestar
to be governor, but maybe we should recall him for the more diminutive
child actor."
You should send a gift to my church for thatbut I can do it! My tongue
is holy!
Free clue: That wasn't water they baptized your tongue with, Norman/
Bernadette/Rufus/Sunshine/Thurgood/Lurlean.
I'm still a praying and a testifying for all of you UNWORTHY people,
Sister Lurlean Tucker
Fire Baptized Speaker in TRUE Tongues
Such priceless comedy!
--
Q. How many people with ADD does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Let's go ride a bike.
.
|
|
| User: "the cutest atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 03:38:53 AM |
|
|
<snippage>
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists, well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ. and they always try to introduce
these people with a view to making them some sort of false idol, and try to
make atheism ridiculous through these strawmen. like this woman that got
murdered, or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown just
as often that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if science
just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many of
them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 09:22:37 AM |
|
|
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<snippage>
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists, well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ. and they always try to introduce
these people with a view to making them some sort of false idol, and try to
make atheism ridiculous through these strawmen. like this woman that got
murdered, or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown just
as often that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if science
just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many of
them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Perhaps, Cutest, these same people might suggest in similar fashion
that the existence, nay, even the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon has to do with
another dichotomy, which is to say that since one can't really know
with rock-bottom certainty either way, at least with respect to
objective, scientific proof or through the senses, then your
cast-in-concrete position is every bit as tenuous as that which
suggests there is a God - or may be a God. Merely two sides of the
same coin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about those who belong to organized
religions and bible thumpers, merely theists, perhaps even agnostics,
who hedge their bets.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 11:04:37 AM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in
news:1dc521ed.0310180622.7b7965bf@posting.google.com:
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
(snip earlier)
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once
curious and at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane,
that theists, well, fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of
atheist figurehead or ringleader to compare to their christ. and they
always try to introduce these people with a view to making them some
sort of false idol, and try to make atheism ridiculous through these
strawmen. like this woman that got murdered, or darwin, who they
continually claim (though it's been shown just as often that it's a
rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if science just shifts
with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many of them
cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Perhaps, Cutest, these same people might suggest in similar fashion
that the existence, nay, even the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon has to do with
another dichotomy, which is to say that since one can't really know
with rock-bottom certainty either way, at least with respect to
objective, scientific proof or through the senses, then your
cast-in-concrete position is every bit as tenuous as that which
suggests there is a God - or may be a God. Merely two sides of the
same coin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about those who belong to organized
religions and bible thumpers, merely theists, perhaps even agnostics,
who hedge their bets.
Cordially, Marie
I wonder if they think that they are going to fool this god when they
"hedge their bets"? It seems to me that if there is some omnipotent god
passing out final judgement, then he should be able to separate the "true
believers" from those who are just saying so on the off chance that there
might be such a god. I wonder if maybe this god might value honesty and
integrity more than "hedging your bet"?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 02:50:28 AM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in message news:<1dc521ed.0310180622.7b7965bf@posting.google.com>...
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<snippage>
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists, well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ. and they always try to introduce
these people with a view to making them some sort of false idol, and try to
make atheism ridiculous through these strawmen. like this woman that got
murdered, or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown just
as often that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if science
just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many of
them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Perhaps, Cutest, these same people might suggest in similar fashion
that the existence, nay, even the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon has to do with
another dichotomy, which is to say that since one can't really know
with rock-bottom certainty either way, at least with respect to
objective, scientific proof or through the senses, then your
cast-in-concrete position is every bit as tenuous as that which
suggests there is a God - or may be a God. Merely two sides of the
same coin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about those who belong to organized
religions and bible thumpers, merely theists, perhaps even agnostics,
who hedge their bets.
Cordially, Marie
I was raised a believer. I looked a long time. My position isn't cast
in concrete. <shrug> Got any evidence?
<insert change of subject here>
--- kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wolfington wolf@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 07:22:37 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2003 07:22:37 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<snippage>
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists, well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ. and they always try to introduce
these people with a view to making them some sort of false idol, and try to
make atheism ridiculous through these strawmen. like this woman that got
murdered, or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown just
as often that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if science
just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many of
them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Perhaps, Cutest, these same people might suggest in similar fashion
that the existence, nay, even the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon has to do with
another dichotomy, which is to say that since one can't really know
with rock-bottom certainty either way, at least with respect to
objective, scientific proof or through the senses, then your
cast-in-concrete position is every bit as tenuous as that which
suggests there is a God - or may be a God. Merely two sides of the
same coin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about those who belong to organized
religions and bible thumpers, merely theists, perhaps even agnostics,
who hedge their bets.
Cordially, Marie
For me I can't look out on the universe with all it's balance and
believe it all happened by accident. It's like saying that your car
or wrist watch just evolved from nothing into a complicated working
object.
If absolute power corrupts absolutly,
does absolute powerlessness make you Pure?
Harry Shearer
.
|
|
|
| User: "the cutest atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
20 Oct 2003 12:56:15 AM |
|
|
"wolfington" <wolf@home> wrote in message
news:eda6pvs8thcsk1etf17r2amdb2iknnk5ps@4ax.com...
On 18 Oct 2003 07:22:37 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<snippage>
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone
Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once
curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists,
well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ. and they always try to introduce
these people with a view to making them some sort of false idol, and
try to
make atheism ridiculous through these strawmen. like this woman that
got
murdered, or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown
just
as often that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if
science
just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many
of
them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism
is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Perhaps, Cutest, these same people might suggest in similar fashion
that the existence, nay, even the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon has to do with
another dichotomy, which is to say that since one can't really know
with rock-bottom certainty either way, at least with respect to
objective, scientific proof or through the senses, then your
cast-in-concrete position is every bit as tenuous as that which
suggests there is a God - or may be a God. Merely two sides of the
same coin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about those who belong to organized
religions and bible thumpers, merely theists, perhaps even agnostics,
who hedge their bets.
Cordially, Marie
For me I can't look out on the universe with all it's balance and
believe it all happened by accident. It's like saying that your car
or wrist watch just evolved from nothing into a complicated working
object.
lol, *what* balance?? don't make me spam you with astrobiological evidence,
dear, it's painful for the uninitiated...
-cutie
.
|
|
|
| User: "wolfington wolf@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
20 Oct 2003 11:22:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:56:15 GMT, "the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:
"wolfington" <wolf@home> wrote in message
news:eda6pvs8thcsk1etf17r2amdb2iknnk5ps@4ax.com...
On 18 Oct 2003 07:22:37 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<snippage>
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone
Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once
curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists,
well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ. and they always try to introduce
these people with a view to making them some sort of false idol, and
try to
make atheism ridiculous through these strawmen. like this woman that
got
murdered, or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown
just
as often that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if
science
just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many
of
them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism
is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Perhaps, Cutest, these same people might suggest in similar fashion
that the existence, nay, even the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon has to do with
another dichotomy, which is to say that since one can't really know
with rock-bottom certainty either way, at least with respect to
objective, scientific proof or through the senses, then your
cast-in-concrete position is every bit as tenuous as that which
suggests there is a God - or may be a God. Merely two sides of the
same coin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about those who belong to organized
religions and bible thumpers, merely theists, perhaps even agnostics,
who hedge their bets.
Cordially, Marie
For me I can't look out on the universe with all it's balance and
believe it all happened by accident. It's like saying that your car
or wrist watch just evolved from nothing into a complicated working
object.
lol, *what* balance?? don't make me spam you with astrobiological evidence,
dear, it's painful for the uninitiated...
-cutie
A good reference to the balance is in Isaac Asamov's book
Fact and Fancy. as to the other since I'm into trivia hit me with
your best shot. <g>
If absolute power corrupts absolutly,
does absolute powerlessness make you Pure?
Harry Shearer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 01:14:57 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2003 07:22:37 -0700, (Marie A.) in
news message <1dc521ed.0310180622.7b7965bf@posting.google.com> wrote:
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<snippage>
I know this ain't Curse-See-Bear saying this on account of he knows
better. When he has a problem he turns to either "Loving Someone Gay"
or "The Satanic Bible".
Hehe. Just like you "knew" that the cutest atheist had pictures of
Madalyn O'Hair, even though she had no idea who the person was?
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists, well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ. and they always try to introduce
these people with a view to making them some sort of false idol, and try to
make atheism ridiculous through these strawmen. like this woman that got
murdered, or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown just
as often that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed. (as if science
just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!) it seems so many of
them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a religion. atheism is
not a movement or a trendy club to belong to. it's a *fucking simple*
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Perhaps, Cutest, these same people might suggest in similar fashion
that the existence, nay, even the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
No, I think most of us grasp it, but dismiss the possibility due to
the utter lack of evidence for such a being.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon
Atheists howl at the moon? Why didn't anyone tell me? Have I been
doing it wrong all these years?
has to do with
another dichotomy, which is to say that since one can't really know
with rock-bottom certainty either way, at least with respect to
objective, scientific proof or through the senses, then your
cast-in-concrete position is every bit as tenuous as that which
suggests there is a God - or may be a God. Merely two sides of the
same coin.
If that's what most atheists thought then yes, the lack of belief in a
deity would be as every bit as irrational as belief in God®. However,
it is not. I'm quite willing to change my mind on belief in God® if
someone can provide actual evidence instead of cultural beliefs and
ootsie feelings. So far, there isn't any such evidence and I put God®
in a category with other proposed yet unevidenced entities such as
leprechauns, jolly fat elves, and angels.
Now if you have some evidence to support a belief in God® other than
"just so" stories or your subjective experiences, I'll be more than
willing to investigate that evidence, and if it is credible and
verifiable, I would change my mind as to the existence of God®.
Mind you, I'm not talking about those who belong to organized
religions and bible thumpers, merely theists, perhaps even agnostics,
who hedge their bets.
IMO, people who hedge their bets have no confidence in their decisions
and even less integrity. Who would you think you would be fooling . .
.. yourself, God®, other people?
Liz #658 BAAWA
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence." - Wayne M. Delia
.
|
|
|
| User: "the cutest atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 06:56:36 PM |
|
|
<snip>
the possibility of the existence of God,
of a Supreme Being and First Mover which set all of this in motion, is
a concept which many of you can't grasp as well.
No, I think most of us grasp it, but dismiss the possibility due to
the utter lack of evidence for such a being.
One of the reasons I think many ascribe a certain religiosity to that
class of insistent atheists who howl at the moon
Atheists howl at the moon? Why didn't anyone tell me? Have I been
doing it wrong all these years?
didn't you get the memo?
something may be amiss in one of the cells of the cabal.....
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 02:46:41 PM |
|
|
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> writes:
On 18 Oct 2003 07:22:37 -0700, (Marie A.) in
news message <1dc521ed.0310180622.7b7965bf@posting.google.com> wrote:
IMO, people who hedge their bets have no confidence in their decisions
and even less integrity. Who would you think you would be fooling . .
. yourself, God®, other people?
Come on. It has nothing to do with integrity. If you are a hedge
better, you just figure that you'll trade off looking a bit foolish
(i.e., if God doesn't exist) for where you'll spend eternity (i.e., if
God does exist.) Maybe hedgers just spend eternity watching reruns of
"I Love Lucy" rather than shoveling coal in the boiler room. You
know, God gives them partial credit. It's no different than splitting
your retirement investment between stocks and bonds to get some
smoothing.
What you are also forgetting is that the bet hedgers may figure they
have more important things to do with their lives than to think about
religion, so they simply cover their bases with a little "risk
management 101," and otherwise ignore the subject. Besides, it may
placate their fundie friends, as a way of not letting fire and
brimstone intrude into dinner conversations.
We won't go into the case where the fundie is cute and you want to
get him/her to relax in the hopes that he/she will have something
to repent about in the morning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
23 Oct 2003 01:42:56 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> writes:
On 18 Oct 2003 07:22:37 -0700, (Marie A.) in
news message <1dc521ed.0310180622.7b7965bf@posting.google.com> wrote:
IMO, people who hedge their bets have no confidence in their decisions
and even less integrity. Who would you think you would be fooling . .
. yourself, God®, other people?
Come on. It has nothing to do with integrity. If you are a hedge
better, you just figure that you'll trade off looking a bit foolish
(i.e., if God doesn't exist) for where you'll spend eternity (i.e., if
God does exist.) Maybe hedgers just spend eternity watching reruns of
"I Love Lucy" rather than shoveling coal in the boiler room. You
know, God gives them partial credit. It's no different than splitting
your retirement investment between stocks and bonds to get some
smoothing.
What you are also forgetting is that the bet hedgers may figure they
have more important things to do with their lives than to think about
religion, so they simply cover their bases with a little "risk
management 101," and otherwise ignore the subject. Besides, it may
placate their fundie friends, as a way of not letting fire and
brimstone intrude into dinner conversations.
We won't go into the case where the fundie is cute and you want to
get him/her to relax in the hopes that he/she will have something
to repent about in the morning.
Beautiful, LOL!
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taking back my freedom of conscience.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 05:37:18 PM |
|
|
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<kkv2pvoa6u008ccamsjbmlcjceqlhunq8e@4ax.com>...
(snip)
Now if you have some evidence to support a belief in God® other than
"just so" stories or your subjective experiences, I'll be more than
willing to investigate that evidence, and if it is credible and
verifiable, I would change my mind as to the existence of God®.
If you read my post carefully, you wouldn't be asking me to prove
something that I suggested was perhaps unknowable. You, on the other
hand, are stating categorically that there IS no God. You are really
pretty much in the same class as believers to the extent that you
insist your own beliefs concerning the non-existence of a God are
true.
All you're really saying is, "Absence of proof is proof of absence."
You are taking it on faith that because no proofs of God have been
forthcoming, then it follows that God must not exist. Not necessarily
so, Liz. This is a very large universe and we know almost nothing
about it. And it strikes me that there may be ultimately many things
we can never fully apprehend as human beings if there's an order of
things far removed from our puny intellects. Not being able, or
allowed, to perceive something is not the same as saying it doesn't
exist.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 08:19:10 AM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2003 15:37:18 -0700, (Marie A.) in
news message <1dc521ed.0310181437.22889bab@posting.google.com> wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<kkv2pvoa6u008ccamsjbmlcjceqlhunq8e@4ax.com>...
(snip)
Now if you have some evidence to support a belief in God® other than
"just so" stories or your subjective experiences, I'll be more than
willing to investigate that evidence, and if it is credible and
verifiable, I would change my mind as to the existence of God®.
If you read my post carefully, you wouldn't be asking me to prove
something that I suggested was perhaps unknowable.
I did read your post carefully, and I didn't ask you for evidence
knowing full well that you had none. On the other hand, if you are a
competent English speaker, you would *know the proper reading of the
subjunctive mood as invoking a hypothetical situation often introduced
by the word "if". The hypothetical situation to which I referred was
that you *might have and present some actual evidence. Obviously,
that is not the case.
You, on the other
hand, are stating categorically that there IS no God.
No, no, grasshopper. Nowhere did I state that. You seem to have many
reading deficiencies. In fact, I described a hypothetical situation
where I *would believe in God®. Of course, believers have not yet
been able to actually come up with any objective evidence of the God®
that they so fervently declare is real so the hypothetical situation
remains hypothetical.
You are really
pretty much in the same class as believers to the extent that you
insist your own beliefs concerning the non-existence of a God are
true.
Except that I never said that. What do you see is so horrible about
needing evidence of existence before one commits oneself to actions?
I would not buy a house "on faith" without first inspecting the house,
nor would I send my child to a day care "on faith". Neither will I
believe in a deity "on faith".
All you're really saying is, "Absence of proof is proof of absence."
No, I'm saying that "absence of evidence gives me absolutely no reason
to take anything on faith". I am saying that a deity that can't be
detected in any way is equivalent to one that does not exist, and even
if such an entity does exist, why bother with believing in it.
You are taking it on faith that because no proofs of God have been
forthcoming, then it follows that God must not exist.
No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter if God® exists or not, because
obviously, it can't do anything in the real world that would have real
effects on real people -- other than, of course, those effects which
come directly from subjectively believing. I am saying that I won't
spend any effort in believing in something for which there is no
evidence.
Not necessarily
so, Liz.
However, you have no evidence at all for thinking that.
And I am Queen of the known universe, and I have exactly the same
amount of evidence for my queenliness as believers have for their
God®. If you insist that you don't believe that I am Queen of the
known universe, I can state that it is "not necessarily so" and we
would be in equivalent positions as to the existence of my queenhood
and the existence of your God®.
This is a very large universe and we know almost nothing
about it. And it strikes me that there may be ultimately many things
we can never fully apprehend as human beings if there's an order of
things far removed from our puny intellects. Not being able, or
allowed, to perceive something is not the same as saying it doesn't
exist.
LOL I love when believers start talking in tongues. Let me rephrase
the above to show what you are really asserting:
1. I am very small and stupid.
2. I don't know much.
3. Therefore, God® exists.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 07:36:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:14:57 +0000, Liz wrote:
Atheists howl at the moon? Why didn't anyone tell me? Have I been
doing it wrong all these years?
I was wondering where you've been when the moon's full...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sister Lurlean Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 03:18:07 PM |
|
|
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Don't you have no normal name like Wanda or Rhiannon? Did your mama
actually call you "the cutest atheist"? I think she ought have called
you Vanity instead. We got a actress up here that's called that. Can
I call you that honey child?
<snippage>
You may cut into my sermons but you can't remove one jot nor one
tittle from the Holy Bible. You will be judged by ALL of it when
Jesus comes back in all His glory to punish sinners.
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists, well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ.
Oh I didn't NEVER compare the devil's own bride with Christ and i
wouldn't neither. I just thought that since this evil woman typified
atheists and called herself THE atheist and claimed to speak for all
atheists that you would have a picture of her and honor her. I know
of some atheists that burn a candle before her picture even though
they don't believe she's still alive anywhere. (I know she is - I've
seen her in hell PERSONALLY.) I am sure that if you read any of her
filthy books - with titles like "Jesus Christ Super Fraud" and
"Religion - Why Bother?" you would nod your head and agree with most
of the vulgar stuff in them. What atheists forget too many times is
that Madalyn O'Hair championed every kind of immortality. She was all
for homo sexuality, fornication, adultery, wife swapping, pornography
& every kind of masturbation. She used to say "whatever two OR MORE
consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes is just
fine with me. If it feels good do it."
and they always try to introduce these people with a view to making them some > sort of false idol, and try to make atheism ridiculous through these
strawmen.
Atheism is ridiculous even without no straw men. Before her there was
Charles Bradlaugh, Robert Ingersoll & Charles Darwin. She used to
have pictures of them men in her Godless church. She believed they
had "liberated" freethinkers from the shackles of religion and that
they ought to be honored. Satan sure honored all of them by putting
them all in their own volcano's in hell. Hahahahahaha!
like this woman that got murdered,
She was tortured to death along with her 300 pound granddaughter and
her 400 pound son - by atheists that wanted her money! Her older born
again son buried what was left of her with a beautiful white cross on
her grave! Praise GOD for that. He won't tell the rest of the
atheists where the grave is on account of he knows they'll come and
DESECRATE it with swastika's.
or darwin, who they continually claim (though it's been shown just as often
that it's a rumour only) 'recanted' on his deathbed.
Well I can tell you for certain that he didn't. He's in hell now
along with Madalyn O'Hair - though not quite as deep. Madalyn O'Hair
sleeps on a red hot bed of nails with Satan himself! And he has her
any way he wants her!
(as if science just shifts with the pronouncements of an old man!!)
But he denied the true creation science in the Holy Bible! Science is
something human beings are only beginning to understand imperfectly.
One day we'll see that God put all the right answers in the Bible. We
just got to make the effort to understand them.
it seems so many of them cannot conceive that we, atheists, are not in a
religion.
It's a Satanic cult. Madalyn's church was listed in the Encyclopedia
of American Religions for the last THREE editions! And with her
approval cause she craved publicity and money. Other atheistic
churches was listed too - including all the queer ones. They put so
called Christian queer churches under "unclassified" groups cause the
Council of Churches didn't want them. They was called "homo sexually
oriented churches". I think "DISORIENTED" would be better.
atheism is not a movement or a trendy club to belong to.
No - it's a form of Satanism.
it's a *f*cking simple*
You know, you can't be "cute" and use foul language like that Vanity.
Didn't your mama teach you no better?
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
I'd say that those of us that knows real atheists and has seen
atheists in action just knows better than that. We deliberately
REFUSE to grasp the claims you all make about yourselves that say
you're all so rational and free from theism. You're all just as
dogmatic and predudiced as you all say we are! Otherwise it wouldn't
bother you all so much that most people still believe in God and
worship Him and want to go to heaven, even if millions still belong to
false religions and will go to hell anyway on account of they worship
all the wrong things and people.
strange, these weird dichotomies.
We think it's weird that you all can't see the truth in the Bible.
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Why not jump into a Bible believing church instead and learn something
about your Creator and your Judge? Jesus is waiting to forgive you
and take you back into His loving arms if you'll just repent and say
no to the devil's unbelief and immorality. And don't you go reading
any of old dead Madalyn's wicked books to reinforce your atheistic
ways. All these new people stepped into her shoes even before she
died and delayed the investigation of her disappearance for YEARS so
they could get her fortune. That's how atheists operate - on greed -
not on respect for human life or secular humanism or nothing but the
same old evil Jesus preached against two thousand years ago.
I'll pray for you honey,
Sister Lurlean W. Tucker
Fire Baptized True Christian Witness
.
|
|
|
| User: "the cutest atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 07:19:59 PM |
|
|
"Sister Lurlean Tucker" <Lurlean@wowmail.com> wrote in message
news:7908c278.0310181218.1a2aaa26@posting.google.com...
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Don't you have no normal name like Wanda or Rhiannon? Did your mama
actually call you "the cutest atheist"? I think she ought have called
you Vanity instead. We got a actress up here that's called that. Can
I call you that honey child?
yeah, you can call me Vanity if you like. My mummy did give me a proper name
though, and it's pretty nice, but I'm reluctant to use it on the internet.
I'm sure you understand.
<snippage>
You may cut into my sermons but you can't remove one jot nor one
tittle from the Holy Bible. You will be judged by ALL of it when
Jesus comes back in all His glory to punish sinners.
I snip lots because I feel sorry for people with dial-up connections or
other limits on downloads. I think if it's not relevant to a comment, don't
include it. It's a consideration for other people, not a lack of
consideration for you.
<snip>
I know
of some atheists that burn a candle before her picture even though
they don't believe she's still alive anywhere. (I know she is - I've
seen her in hell PERSONALLY.)
When did you go? Is the weather really nice and tropical? I hear the resorts
are tasteful and not overdeveloped
Atheism is ridiculous even without no straw men. Before her there was
Charles Bradlaugh, Robert Ingersoll & Charles Darwin. She used to
have pictures of them men in her Godless church. She believed they
had "liberated" freethinkers from the shackles of religion and that
they ought to be honored. Satan sure honored all of them by putting
them all in their own volcano's in hell. Hahahahahaha!
May I ask why this makes you happy?
<snip>
He won't tell the rest of the
atheists where the grave is on account of he knows they'll come and
DESECRATE it with swastika's.
Are you serious? I didn't get the note saying that Our Official Sign was now
the swastika. Must be because I'm foreign eh?
<snip>
Madalyn's church was listed in the Encyclopedia
of American Religions for the last THREE editions! And with her
approval cause she craved publicity and money.
Just because some moron thinks atheism is a religion, it doesn't make it so.
atheism is not a movement or a trendy club to belong to.
No - it's a form of Satanism.
Atheists don't believe in satan.
it's a *f*cking simple*
You know, you can't be "cute" and use foul language like that Vanity.
Didn't your mama teach you no better?
My mother doesn't like me using bad language, it's true. OOO my new name is
really catching on, isn't it?? Vanity...has a lovely ring to it. I made this
name up as a silly joke, and everyone's having big flaming fits over it, and
whether it's true that I am cute. IT"S TRUE, ok? geez, makes me want to
change back to 'Lila'
concept that these people simply cannot grasp.
I'd say that those of us that knows real atheists and has seen
atheists in action just knows better than that. We deliberately
REFUSE to grasp the claims you all make about yourselves that say
you're all so rational and free from theism. You're all just as
dogmatic and predudiced as you all say we are! Otherwise it wouldn't
bother you all so much that most people still believe in God and
worship Him and want to go to heaven, even if millions still belong to
false religions and will go to hell anyway on account of they worship
all the wrong things and people.
Sweetie, I *don't care* if you believe in a god. What I care about is people
using this persona belief to try to enforce a dubious morality on others.
Atheism's not dogmatic, it's the absence of belief, and I'd thankyou to stop
trying to fill the vacuum with strawmen. It won't change anyone's position.
<snip>
thunk! <just jumped off my soapbox>
Why not jump into a Bible believing church instead and learn something
about your Creator and your Judge? Jesus is waiting to forgive you
and take you back into His loving arms if you'll just repent and say
no to the devil's unbelief and immorality.
lol, sounds like an advertisement!! Why not jump into this cool, refreshing
belief system where we personally guarantee to agree with all your white
supremacist, homophobic impulses. Call now, and we'll send you this
instruction manual on how to annoy people on usenet...
I'll pray for you honey,
er, thanks. Don't stress too much over us atheists and queers....look after
that baby of yours - they feel tension in the womb, you know.
Sister Lurlean W. Tucker
Fire Baptized True Christian Witness
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarcRW" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 06:21:25 PM |
|
|
"Sister Lurlean Tucker" <Lurlean@wowmail.com> wrote in message
news:7908c278.0310181218.1a2aaa26@posting.google.com...
I'm going to hope you're an atheist mocking theists. Otherwise, you could
turn the Pope away from religion.
Marc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mushinronsha" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 07:40:06 PM |
|
|
MarcRW wrote:
"Sister Lurlean Tucker" <Lurlean@wowmail.com> wrote in message
news:7908c278.0310181218.1a2aaa26@posting.google.com...
I'm going to hope you're an atheist mocking theists. Otherwise, you could
turn the Pope away from religion.
Marc
I'm guessing Sister Lurlean is a guy, and atheist, and a student at Syracuse
University in New York.
Mushy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 03:47:18 PM |
|
|
(Sister Lurlean Tucker) writes:
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<snip>
You may cut into my sermons but you can't remove one jot nor one
tittle from the Holy Bible.
Sure you can. All you need is this little gizmo called an exacto
knife.
I'll pray for you honey,
Now don't get fresh....
Sister Lurlean W. Tucker
Fire Baptized True Christian Witness
Fire fries the brain.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 03:32:35 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2003 13:18:07 -0700, (Sister Lurlean
Tucker) wrote:
"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x_6kb.155733$bo1.83682@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Don't you have no normal name like Wanda or Rhiannon? Did your mama
actually call you "the cutest atheist"? I think she ought have called
you Vanity instead. We got a actress up here that's called that. Can
I call you that honey child?
<snippage>
You may cut into my sermons but you can't remove one jot nor one
tittle from the Holy Bible. You will be judged by ALL of it when
Jesus comes back in all His glory to punish sinners.
What a maroon.
What do you hope to achieve by threatening somebody with part of your
mythology for not taking the rest of it seriously?
Think about it.
to go off on a little tangent here, I've always found it at once curious and
at the same time annoyingly and disappointingly mundane, that theists, well,
fundy ones at least, have to find some kind of atheist figurehead or
ringleader to compare to their christ.
Oh I didn't NEVER compare the devil's own bride with Christ and i
wouldn't neither. I just thought that since this evil woman typified
atheists and called herself THE atheist and claimed to speak for all
What "evil woman"?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was an atheist, and we have her to thank for
some of our basic civil rights.
She and her family were tortured and brutally murdered by a Christian.
And when the bodies were finally found, Christians picketed the site
with placards. One the victims was a member of this (atheist)
newsgroup, and considered a friend.
One of *U*S*. Tortured and murdered by somebody who had stolen cash
and equipment from their office. It was reported to the local law
enforcement who did nothing, so eventually O'Hair published the
details and accusation ofn the web. But the perpetrator took the most
awful revenge on her and her family, kidnapping, torturing and
eventually murdering them.
And you assholes were gleeful.
atheists that you would have a picture of her and honor her. I know
of some atheists that burn a candle before her picture even though
they don't believe she's still alive anywhere. (I know she is - I've
seen her in hell PERSONALLY.) I am sure that if you read any of her
filthy books - with titles like "Jesus Christ Super Fraud" and
"Religion - Why Bother?" you would nod your head and agree with most
of the vulgar stuff in them. What atheists forget too many times is
that Madalyn O'Hair championed every kind of immortality. She was all
for homo sexuality, fornication, adultery, wife swapping, pornography
& every kind of masturbation. She used to say "whatever two OR MORE
consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes is just
fine with me. If it feels good do it."
What makes those books filthy?
The only filth is the everyday slander and villification atheists are
expected to put up with.
We find you religious extremists far more scary than two harmless
adults doing their own thing in the privacy of their bedroom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sister Lurlean Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
18 Oct 2003 08:37:19 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<p983pvkbnkphe6nsednijt4slulmgps1lk@4ax.com>...
Oh no! It's COUNT DRACULA himself!!!
What a maroon.
Ain't that a color?
What do you hope to achieve by threatening somebody with part of your
mythology for not taking the rest of it seriously?
I don't believe in mythology. There ain't none of that in the Holy
Bible. Every word is TRUE!!!
Think about it.
I always do. I know Jesus Christ PERSONALLY. Mythology don't got
nothing to do with it.
What "evil woman"?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the famous foul mouthed Satanist!
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was an atheist, and we have her to thank for
some of our basic civil rights.
Such as what? Some people believe that prayer and Bible reading are
VITAL to the education of kids. When she got the Supreme Court to
take them holy things out of the schools, they replaced them with sex,
violence, dope and acid rock. Teenage promiscuity and unwanted
preganacy EXPLODED right after that. After she joined the church of
Satan she started the so called "summer of love" but it was all about
free sex and pot.
She and her family were tortured and brutally murdered by a Christian.
No Christian would have joined her church. He was a Godless atheist
just like her. I don't condone what he did and I think he ought to be
stoned to death for torturing them F-A-T atheists to death with
pliers, but they was sure known by the company they kept HUH?
And when the bodies were finally found, Christians picketed the site
with placards. One the victims was a member of this (atheist)
newsgroup, and considered a friend.
Victims of what? I think they was just a praying for her. Or do you
mean them hardshell Baptists from the Westborough Baptist Church?
They didn't do nobody no harm that I know of. If atheists can't take
the heat they ought to get back in church.
One of *U*S*. Tortured and murdered by somebody who had stolen cash
and equipment from their office. It was reported to the local law
enforcement who did nothing,
I know that. She'd made enemy's of all the police in Texas.
so eventually O'Hair published the details and accusation ofn the web.
O'Hair? Are you sure? She had been killed before anything was
published on the web and her husband had died years before. Who is it
you really got in mind? Her BORN AGAIN son Bill? He came along
before Madalyn married Richard O'Hair. She tried to keep all that
money laundering stuff hush hush, and the web wasn't what it now back
in 1995.
But the perpetrator took the most awful revenge on her and her family,
kidnapping, torturing and eventually murdering them.
He did that out of ATHEISM. That was evil no matter who did it.
And you *ssholes were gleeful.
I wasn't gleeful over her agony. I prayed that she would repent and
find Jesus.
What makes those books filthy?
They slander God, the Bible, and the church. She can criticize them
things CONSTRUCTIVELY but not with all her foul language and nasty
accusations. She used to say "Oh I don't see no reason to get married
to have baby's cause the Holy Ghost didn't marry Jesus' Mother Mary."
God made her drink molten lead in hell for a whole year for saying
that!
The only filth is the everyday slander and villification atheists are
expected to put up with.
Oh come ON! They get to preach their IMMORALITY in every public
school. It's because of them that there's a sexual revolution in
progress today, with everybody fornicating with ALL and sundry.
We find you religious extremists far more scary than two harmless
adults doing their own thing in the privacy of their bedroom.
You would. Sexual immorality is how Satan corrupts our country from
the ground up. Look what all of Madalyn's immorality did for her
family. Her kids weighed 300-400 pounds each and never had no
intimate relationships with nobody. Old Madalyn didn't have Jon Garth
circumcised, and he had real bad body odor on account of all his
SMEGMA!
I'll keep a praying for you,
Sister Lurlean Tucker
Fire Baptized Evagelist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 08:24:43 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on 18 Oct 2003 18:37:19 -0700, a stranger called
by some (Sister Lurlean Tucker) came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<p983pvkbnkphe6nsednijt4slulmgps1lk@4ax.com>...
Oh no! It's COUNT DRACULA himself!!!
Please! Bela Lugosi was a far superior Dracula
What a maroon.
Ain't that a color?
Not to those of us who actually speak modern English.
What do you hope to achieve by threatening somebody with part of your
mythology for not taking the rest of it seriously?
I don't believe in mythology. There ain't none of that in the Holy
Bible. Every word is TRUE!!!
How many legs do grasshoppers have?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was an atheist, and we have her to thank for
some of our basic civil rights.
Such as what? Some people believe that prayer and Bible reading are
VITAL to the education of kids. When she got the Supreme Court to
take them holy things out of the schools, they replaced them with sex,
violence, dope and acid rock. Teenage promiscuity and unwanted
preganacy EXPLODED right after that. After she joined the church of
Satan she started the so called "summer of love" but it was all about
free sex and pot.
If you think that religious unstruction is important, do it at home
and in the church of your choice.
Unless of course you are willing to accept the instruction of all the
different faiths in America in your local school.
She and her family were tortured and brutally murdered by a Christian.
No Christian would have joined her church. He was a Godless atheist
just like her. I don't condone what he did and I think he ought to be
stoned to death for torturing them F-A-T atheists to death with
pliers, but they was sure known by the company they kept HUH?
Two words: Susan Smith.
The only filth is the everyday slander and villification atheists are
expected to put up with.
Oh come ON! They get to preach their IMMORALITY in every public
school. It's because of them that there's a sexual revolution in
progress today, with everybody fornicating with ALL and sundry.
Again, I ask: Name a single school district that actually teaches
atheism.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "REIVER" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 03:36:41 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vq35pv05j7h89ko6oophv9f494pt7rqbck@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on 18 Oct 2003 18:37:19 -0700, a stranger called
by some (Sister Lurlean Tucker) came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<p983pvkbnkphe6nsednijt4slulmgps1lk@4ax.com>...
Oh no! It's COUNT DRACULA himself!!!
Please! Bela Lugosi was a far superior Dracula
What a maroon.
Ain't that a color?
Not to those of us who actually speak modern English.
Yes, it can mean to abandon or isolate, but it still wouldn't make sense. I
think he was looking for the term "moron". If you are going to insult
someone's intelligence, at least take the time to spell the insult
correctly.
What do you hope to achieve by threatening somebody with part of your
mythology for not taking the rest of it seriously?
I don't believe in mythology. There ain't none of that in the Holy
Bible. Every word is TRUE!!!
How many legs do grasshoppers have?
There are no grasshoppers in the bible only locusts. There are translations
that improperly call them grasshoppers. How many legs they have is
irrelevant.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was an atheist, and we have her to thank for
some of our basic civil rights.
Such as what? Some people believe that prayer and Bible reading are
VITAL to the education of kids. When she got the Supreme Court to
take them holy things out of the schools, they replaced them with sex,
violence, dope and acid rock. Teenage promiscuity and unwanted
preganacy EXPLODED right after that. After she joined the church of
Satan she started the so called "summer of love" but it was all about
free sex and pot.
If you think that religious unstruction is important, do it at home
and in the church of your choice.
I'll do it in the streets if I like. I'm not going to hide because you want
me to.
Unless of course you are willing to accept the instruction of all the
different faiths in America in your local school.
Have you looked lately? Have you seen the post 9/11 curriculum?
She and her family were tortured and brutally murdered by a Christian.
No Christian would have joined her church. He was a Godless atheist
just like her. I don't condone what he did and I think he ought to be
stoned to death for torturing them F-A-T atheists to death with
pliers, but they was sure known by the company they kept HUH?
Two words: Susan Smith.
1. What does Susan Smith have to do with O'hair?
2. Since you can add unrelated topics, here is mine:
Three words: Vanilla Dr. Pepper
Reiver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 03:59:18 PM |
|
|
"REIVER" <reiver@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tBCkb.49$4L2.44@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vq35pv05j7h89ko6oophv9f494pt7rqbck@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on 18 Oct 2003 18:37:19 -0700, a stranger called
by some (Sister Lurlean Tucker) came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<p983pvkbnkphe6nsednijt4slulmgps1lk@4ax.com>...
Oh no! It's COUNT DRACULA himself!!!
Please! Bela Lugosi was a far superior Dracula
What a maroon.
Ain't that a color?
Not to those of us who actually speak modern English.
Yes, it can mean to abandon or isolate, but it still wouldn't make sense.
I
think he was looking for the term "moron". If you are going to insult
someone's intelligence, at least take the time to spell the insult
correctly.
It has several meanings. From dictionary.com
ma·roon1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rn)
tr.v. ma·rooned, ma·roon·ing, ma·roons
1.. To put ashore on a deserted island or coast and intentionally
abandon.
2.. To abandon or isolate with little hope of ready rescue or
escape: The travelers were marooned by the blizzard.
n.
1.. often Maroon
1.. A fugitive Black slave in the West Indies in the 17th and 18th
centuries.
2.. A descendant of such a slave.
2.. A person who is marooned, as on an island.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From French marron, fugitive slave, from American Spanish cimarrón,
wild, runaway, perhaps from cima, summit (from runaways' fleeing to the
mountains), from Latin cma, sprout. See cyma.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]
ma·roon2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rn)
n.
A dark reddish brown to dark purplish red.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French marron, chestnut, from Italian marrone.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]
Maroon
\Ma*roon"\, n. [Written also marroon.] [F. marron, abbrev. fr. Sp. cimarron
wild, unruly, from cima the summit of a mountain; hence, negro cimarron a
runaway negro that lives in the mountains.] In the West Indies and Guiana, a
fugitive slave, or a free negro, living in the mountains.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
Maroon
\Ma*roon"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Marooned; p. pr. & vb. n. Marooning.] [See
Maroon a fugitive slave.] To put (a person) ashore on a desolate island or
coast and leave him to his fate.
Marooning party, a social excursion party that sojourns several days on the
shore or in some retired place; a prolonged picnic. [Southern U.
S.] --Bartlett.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
Maroon
\Ma*roon"\, a. [F. marron chestnut-colored, fr. marron a large French
chestnut, It. marrone; cf. LGr. ?. Cf. Marron.] Having the color called
maroon. See 4th Maroon.
Maroon lake, lake prepared from madder, and distinguished for its
transparency and the depth and durability of its color.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
Maroon
\Ma*roon"\, n. 1. A brownish or dull red of any description, esp. of a
scarlet cast rather than approaching crimson or purple.
2. An explosive shell. See Marron, 3.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
Maroon
Marron \Mar*ron"\, n. [See Maroon, a.] 1. A large chestnut.
[Obs.] --Holland.
2. A chestnut color; maroon.
3. (Pyrotechny & Mil.) A paper or pasteboard box or shell, wound about with
strong twine, filled with an explosive, and ignited with a fuse, -- used to
make a noise like a cannon. [Written also maroon.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
Maroon
adj : dark brownish to purplish red n : an exploding firework used as a
warning signal v 1: leave stranded; put ashore on a desolate island and
abandon [syn: strand] 2: isolate without resources; "The mutinous sailors
were marooned on an island"
begin 666 pron.jpg
M_]C_X `02D9)1@`!`@$`2 !(``#_[08(4&AO=&]S:&]P(#,N, `X0DE-`^D`
M`````'@`'@```$@`2 `````"YP)3__?_^ ,/`EL@`@4H`_P``````6@!: ``
M```.@PN?`70`,@N?2*@`2P`!`0$````!)P\``0`!````````````````````
M`````````0!D`P```````````!"A"@`1`````````%,V,# X0DE-`^T`````
M`! `2 !"``$``0!(`$(``0`!.$))300-```````$````>#A"24T#\P``````
M" ``````````.$))300*```````!```X0DE-)Q ```````H``0`````````"
M.$))30/U``````!(`"]F9@`!`&QF9@`&```````!`"]F9@`!`*&9F@`&````
M```!`#(````!`%H````&```````!`#4````!`"T````&```````!.$))30/X
M``````!P``#_____________________________`^@`````____________
M_________________P/H`````/____________________________\#Z ``
M``#_____________________________`^@``#A"24T$" ``````'P````$`
M``) ```"0 ````,``!1 ````!> !```]50``.$))3001```````!`0`X0DE-
M!!0```````0```#Q.$))300,``````,3`````0````T````5````* ```T@`
M``+W`!@``?_8_^ `$$I&248``0(!`$@`2 ``__X`)D9I;&4@=W)I='1E;B!B
M>2!!9&]B92!0:&]T;W-H;W"H(#4N,/_N``Y!9&]B90!D@ ````'_VP"$``P(
M" @)" P)"0P1"PH+$14/# P/%1@3$Q43$Q@1# P,# P,$0P,# P,# P,# P,
M# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P!#0L+#0X-$ X.$!0.#@X4% X.#@X4$0P,# P,
M$1$,# P,# P1# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,#/_ `!$(`!4`
M#0,!(@`"$0$#$0'_W0`$``'_Q $_```!!0$!`0$!`0`````````#``$"! 4&
M!P@)"@L!``$%`0$!`0$!``````````$``@,$!08'" D*"Q ``00!`P($`@4'
M!@@%`PPS`0`"$0,$(1(Q!4%181,B<8$R!A21H;%"(R054L%B,S1R@M%#!R62
M4_#A\6-S-1:BLH,F1)-49$7"HW0V%])5XF7RLX3#TW7C\T8GE*2%M)7$U.3T
MI;7%U>7U5F9VAI:FML;6YO8W1U=G=X>7I[?'U^?W$0`"`@$"! 0#! 4&!P<&
M!34!``(1`R$Q$@1!46%Q(A,%,H&1%*&Q0B/!4M'P,R1BX7*"DD-3%6-S-/$E
M!A:BLH,')C7"TD235*,79$55-G1EXO*SA,/3=>/S1I2DA;25Q-3D]*6UQ=7E
M]59F=H:6IK;&UN;V)S='5V=WAY>GM\?_V@`,`P$``A$#$0`_`/0\CZQ]$QW6
M,MS*_4I):^L&7[FZ.9L;[M^[\U9;.N]<.3<XXHVLMI+</3U?0?3D7/U_[E_H
MF/\`2_ZRK&/C==Z<<OT,;&R:K,B[)8/5<VPBQQM]/6KT_4_MJA5UK#_:>3U#
MW[?5QV>CM/J^K]GRV?9?2_T_J?H]JBXI6+\?35?HR;(QPX94+%#UWQ</KAT_
M0?_0]45-O[(^W/V^C]LWL]3C?ZFRSTI_X3[/ZW_6E\Q)('ILD;2WVZ>?Z3__
MV0`X0DE-! $``````+8`!@````````````````````````````````````4`
M``````````````````````````````$#QYYZ^[B=B@/,DDG[I8G9`\R22?NE
MB=D``0.TDDG[R[$[`ZYYZ/Q0G8H#J&&&_-6)V0`!`_SSS_S%B=D#_///_,6)
MV0/\\\_\Q8G9``$$-GGH_'V)V00.>>C\( ``! ///?P(`````0/9AAC[_$[%
M`]C##/OIV)X#USST^\1.Q3A"24T$!@``````!P`(`0$``0$`__X`)D9I;&4@
M=W)I='1E;B!B>2!!9&]B92!0:&]T;W-H;W"H(#4N,/_N`"%!9&]B90!D0 ``
M``$#`! #`@,&````````````````_]L`A `!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!
M`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`@("`@("`@("`@(#`P,#`P,#`P,#
M`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$"`@$"`@,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#
M`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P/_P@`1" `5``T#`1$``A$!`Q$!_\0`F@`!
M``,`````````````````" <)"@$!`0$!````````````````!@4'"! ``0,#
M! ,!````````````!@0%" (#!P`!%181(A<8$0``!0(%! ,!```````````#
M! 4&!P$"$Q06%P@`$40505$2)!(``0,#`P(&`04``````````0(#!!$2$P`4
M!2$B,4$R0A4&(Q#P8206_]H`# ,!`0(1`Q$```#9J0=BT;H,KU8I?,L+W-RY
ML.YU5__:``@!`@`!!0!<=B*"[9,2^M<A0&8_4G+FGG]4=9Y?_]H`" $#``$%
M`&_&1ZZ6K^/P*VUN+GCXJI5 C[U7;5SN/!?_V@`(`0$``04`.)^0[QZO9YES
M)6'P, 35CM<'9@8CVD-Z^$?Y?^P__]H`" $"`@8_`);$GGH^Y94I"FPHJ7<D
MT4@(2"HKN%H2`23T'4ZY%Q7"IQ-R(Y3$J-P(KD:4\H5\#*.-"PU6@H6@JXE6
MN:V7$\?*BO<A)DH_L.(=4EYTN! "F"V%T-H)7;<1W 5.N7Y_\N+<Q$8;#GW&
MSG)VV/QS7]EOIKW76=WZ2+-M\WF;O].3+B=Q5\\F#+;[\5WEK__:``@!`P(&
M/P"#(B?5Y1AR4H6VZI-C1;6 4N%:BE*6RDA16H@`=3KBFT_8%AUV++2J=0[8
MS&IL*.@V^H0@'EHS!-YNS%%H"!]=^0YWEH,UGC(<-RD5IUA*X[*6BY5,D.*:
MN%U W?;6B2>FN"^KT9R[.>[GR#;;;Y'CE[S-Z=M9^2_QITLR=NOY_?CJ)DWW
M^>P.XZWXL.=G-;Y8MS@N]F:SWZ__V@`(`0$!!C\`=R(Y>0$?!N=CJ"RBN%GI
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#7__9
`
end
begin 666 schwa.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````&``\```(0A(^I>^$6
,&H@2N7MK9AP0% `[
`
end
begin 666 oomacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA#0`.`/<``/___P```$T`=9_WOPR"9H%6#E `G$CWO["3`0!,`$T`
M``!-``\````\#E `..IO`%<!``"4\V\`J(C[OZB!][______A.IO`"A)][\`
M````5@Y0`)Q(][\!````/ Y0`+OQ0P!D$5 `>/-O`&8````\#E ```0``%@/
M4 `!````9!%0`$P`````! ````! `&014 ````````````$```!<$% `! $`
M````````````6 ]0`/CJ;P!L``@`#P`6```````\#E `8'- `-0"2 !/<&5N
M``2(W:<%____````+B !6P``_P`!`/___P`D>T4Z7&%H9#-H=&U<1TE&`&]O
M;6%C<BYG:68`][_3&?._`'!O``((``",ZV\`( ```+(@```J)?._`'!O``,`
M`@@```((`@!O`'9[+%,"""8"-MU-3Z<%``!$`0(`IP6&>YBD! `A`@`````V
MW9)[90?T`3;=```"" ``I'MO'@((`@A$`:<%U@4`````MGO/'$<$``#./[<7
MYQ8``.<6.(UH1[<7UHL^-\\7`0#>%" ``@"8!&\```#[5[<77P$$C %$*.@"
M`)S?`@#G%K3G`@"8!&\`6'P@`(\!^'L,*O>_`@@```````!>`10`/(PM)%\7
M````````% 0@`)S?`@#G%H2,13I<86AD,VAT;5Q'249<;V]M86-R+F=I9@#,
M9R<)7P$O$@``7P$````````4!" `7GP7#[<7```R`#0`M.<"`!P/K'PH`(\!
M7BF8!9T%N'P@`(\!#"KWOS(`- `"``_%```&`!@L!Q>&!<\7X.QO`,SO;P"(
M)O>_U.QO`+#P# `X#E `' $``-&)][\``$T`5 ]0`+#P# ``````# !-````
M30`X#E `0 ````````#0!0```04``/SL;P"!B_>_``!-`)B+][\``$T`00``
M`$$```!F``````````$````@[6\`R9KWOP``30`&F_>_#()F@68```!F````
M``0``&8````%AD,```0``"'Y! $`````+ `````-``X`0 @U``$('$AP8 ""
M!P\:%!A H4&'!2,":$BQHD6$$S%.A+A1HL>/!14Z%)EQ(<2$#!>6!,F28$ `
!.P``
`
end
begin 666 prime.gif
M1TE&.#EA! `6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`!8```(.A(^I$<;>
*0)2JVHLO00$`.P``
`
end
begin 666 ymacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA"0`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````)`!8```(=A(^IR]T!
98W0/&GM/0#MSKP%=,I),*:8*2K4(@0(`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 04:37:01 PM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:GWCkb.4278$W16.2921@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[snip]
What a maroon.
Ain't that a color?
Not to those of us who actually speak modern English.
Yes, it can mean to abandon or isolate, but it still wouldn't make
sense.
I
think he was looking for the term "moron". If you are going to insult
someone's intelligence, at least take the time to spell the insult
correctly.
No, he was quoting Bugs Bunny, an "actor" who did a hundred or so short
films for Warner Brothers. Like Mae West's "Come up and see me soimetime",
"What a maroon!" was a kind of signature. Often, Bugs played comedy to his
close friend Elmer Fudd's straight man. Note that Elmer's role as a
'straight man' is not to say that Bugs was gay. In fact, both had children
who went on to acting careers of their own, and can now be seen on the
daytime show "Tiny Toons" where they play their parents as youngsters.
Enkidu
.
|
|
|
| User: "REIVER" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 05:27:06 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:%tDkb.30652$gi2.27984@fed1read01...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:GWCkb.4278$W16.2921@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[snip]
What a maroon.
Ain't that a color?
Not to those of us who actually speak modern English.
Yes, it can mean to abandon or isolate, but it still wouldn't make
sense.
I
think he was looking for the term "moron". If you are going to insult
someone's intelligence, at least take the time to spell the insult
correctly.
No, he was quoting Bugs Bunny, an "actor" who did a hundred or so short
films for Warner Brothers. Like Mae West's "Come up and see me
soimetime",
"What a maroon!" was a kind of signature. Often, Bugs played comedy to
his
close friend Elmer Fudd's straight man. Note that Elmer's role as a
'straight man' is not to say that Bugs was gay. In fact, both had
children
who went on to acting careers of their own, and can now be seen on the
daytime show "Tiny Toons" where they play their parents as youngsters.
Enkidu
Ahh, I'm not much of a looney tunes fan. I get overdosed on powerpuff
girls/spongebob/Dora, etc that my kid watches. Any more cartoons would be
the death of me....;-)
Reiver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo's Ought to Thank GOD for Christians -- and Then REPENT!!! |
19 Oct 2003 05:40:54 PM |
|
|
"REIVER" <reiver@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_cEkb.64$oX1.60@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Ahh, I'm not much of a looney tunes fan. I get overdosed on powerpuff
girls/spongebob/ | | | | | | | | | | |
