| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"alen" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2005 02:35:15 AM |
| Object: |
Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
bob young wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
that MAN CREATED GODS.
Well, YOU said so, so it MUST be true.
to ANYONE with an OUNCE of common sense it is !
Sure! What person with common sense would fail to accept
that a dead mineral cosmos, with no consciousness at all,
could spontaneously, magically produce living, conscious
beings, and that anyone who thought that only a being that
has life can produce beings with life, and only a being that
has intelligence can produce beings with intelligence, must
be indulging in arbitrary myths and fantasies.
Perhaps an ounce does, after all, describe an upper limit to
the common sense of some atheists.
Alen
.
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
28 Nov 2005 10:50:28 AM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> suddenly spluttered:
bob young wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
that MAN CREATED GODS.
Well, YOU said so, so it MUST be true.
to ANYONE with an OUNCE of common sense it is !
Sure! What person with common sense would fail to accept
that a dead mineral cosmos, with no consciousness at all,
could spontaneously, magically produce living, conscious
beings, and that anyone who thought that only a being that
has life can produce beings with life, and only a being that
has intelligence can produce beings with intelligence, must
be indulging in arbitrary myths and fantasies.
Perhaps an ounce does, after all, describe an upper limit to
the common sense of some atheists.
Alen
Alen, I suspect that you know that is not what most, if any atheists
say. For a start, the compelling reason to be an atheist in most
cases, certainly where one has come from a monotheistic culture, is
that one doesn't belive in magic of any kind, and an assertion that
some supernatural being created everything is therefore ruled out as
only it is by special pleading, which is irrational, can any belief in
God be sustained.
How did life come about? Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody knows
for certain. It is even possible that nobody will ever know exactly
how, but postulating explanations which are absolutely impossible
isn't helping anyone. It is perfectly possible that, over time,
organic molecules - which we know exist all over the universe - given
the right environment (which, as part of the range of possible
environments is virtually inevitable), will develop primitive
self-replicating mechanisms which will refine themselves over time to
adapt to their given environment. As well as this they will affect the
environment they operate in leading to further complexities in the
mechanism, which by now will already be de facto evolution, and
furthermore, some of the corrupted copies will find themselves suited
to different aspects of the environment. Given that the envirmonment
is by no means uniform, or static, this adds another level of
complexity to the process without even the necessity for multi-celled
organisms.
Move on a few billion years and it is quite easy to see how it is
possible for many of the complex adaptations by parts of the process
of replication to certain aspects of the complex and dynamic
environment may seem to be - or at least may open up the possibility
of being dishonestly portrayed as being - 'irreducibly complex'.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
28 Nov 2005 03:25:06 PM |
|
|
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> suddenly spluttered:
bob young wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
that MAN CREATED GODS.
Well, YOU said so, so it MUST be true.
to ANYONE with an OUNCE of common sense it is !
Sure! What person with common sense would fail to accept
that a dead mineral cosmos, with no consciousness at all,
could spontaneously, magically produce living, conscious
beings, and that anyone who thought that only a being that
has life can produce beings with life, and only a being that
has intelligence can produce beings with intelligence, must
be indulging in arbitrary myths and fantasies.
Perhaps an ounce does, after all, describe an upper limit to
the common sense of some atheists.
Alen
Alen, I suspect that you know that is not what most, if any atheists
say. For a start, the compelling reason to be an atheist in most
cases, certainly where one has come from a monotheistic culture, is
that one doesn't belive in magic of any kind, and an assertion that
some supernatural being created everything is therefore ruled out as
only it is by special pleading, which is irrational, can any belief in
God be sustained.
How did life come about? Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody knows
for certain. It is even possible that nobody will ever know exactly
how, but postulating explanations which are absolutely impossible
isn't helping anyone. It is perfectly possible that, over time,
organic molecules - which we know exist all over the universe - given
the right environment (which, as part of the range of possible
environments is virtually inevitable), will develop primitive
self-replicating mechanisms which will refine themselves over time to
adapt to their given environment. As well as this they will affect the
environment they operate in leading to further complexities in the
mechanism, which by now will already be de facto evolution, and
furthermore, some of the corrupted copies will find themselves suited
to different aspects of the environment. Given that the envirmonment
is by no means uniform, or static, this adds another level of
complexity to the process without even the necessity for multi-celled
organisms.
A long-winded sleight of hand which says precisely that a dead
mineral cosmos spontaneously produced a living intelligence it
totally lacked itself - the equivalent of a magical fairy tale.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
28 Nov 2005 06:12:04 PM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> suddenly spluttered:
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> suddenly spluttered:
bob young wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
that MAN CREATED GODS.
Well, YOU said so, so it MUST be true.
to ANYONE with an OUNCE of common sense it is !
Sure! What person with common sense would fail to accept
that a dead mineral cosmos, with no consciousness at all,
could spontaneously, magically produce living, conscious
beings, and that anyone who thought that only a being that
has life can produce beings with life, and only a being that
has intelligence can produce beings with intelligence, must
be indulging in arbitrary myths and fantasies.
Perhaps an ounce does, after all, describe an upper limit to
the common sense of some atheists.
Alen
Alen, I suspect that you know that is not what most, if any atheists
say. For a start, the compelling reason to be an atheist in most
cases, certainly where one has come from a monotheistic culture, is
that one doesn't belive in magic of any kind, and an assertion that
some supernatural being created everything is therefore ruled out as
only it is by special pleading, which is irrational, can any belief in
God be sustained.
How did life come about? Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody knows
for certain. It is even possible that nobody will ever know exactly
how, but postulating explanations which are absolutely impossible
isn't helping anyone. It is perfectly possible that, over time,
organic molecules - which we know exist all over the universe - given
the right environment (which, as part of the range of possible
environments is virtually inevitable), will develop primitive
self-replicating mechanisms which will refine themselves over time to
adapt to their given environment. As well as this they will affect the
environment they operate in leading to further complexities in the
mechanism, which by now will already be de facto evolution, and
furthermore, some of the corrupted copies will find themselves suited
to different aspects of the environment. Given that the envirmonment
is by no means uniform, or static, this adds another level of
complexity to the process without even the necessity for multi-celled
organisms.
A long-winded sleight of hand which says precisely that a dead
mineral cosmos spontaneously produced a living intelligence it
totally lacked itself - the equivalent of a magical fairy tale.
Alen
Your comprehension failure is not my sleight of hand. At least I now
know which you are out of stupid and dishonest.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 04:38:28 AM |
|
|
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> suddenly spluttered:
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> suddenly spluttered:
bob young wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
that MAN CREATED GODS.
Well, YOU said so, so it MUST be true.
to ANYONE with an OUNCE of common sense it is !
Sure! What person with common sense would fail to accept
that a dead mineral cosmos, with no consciousness at all,
could spontaneously, magically produce living, conscious
beings, and that anyone who thought that only a being that
has life can produce beings with life, and only a being that
has intelligence can produce beings with intelligence, must
be indulging in arbitrary myths and fantasies.
Perhaps an ounce does, after all, describe an upper limit to
the common sense of some atheists.
Alen
Alen, I suspect that you know that is not what most, if any atheists
say. For a start, the compelling reason to be an atheist in most
cases, certainly where one has come from a monotheistic culture, is
that one doesn't belive in magic of any kind, and an assertion that
some supernatural being created everything is therefore ruled out as
only it is by special pleading, which is irrational, can any belief in
God be sustained.
How did life come about? Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody knows
for certain. It is even possible that nobody will ever know exactly
how, but postulating explanations which are absolutely impossible
isn't helping anyone. It is perfectly possible that, over time,
organic molecules - which we know exist all over the universe - given
the right environment (which, as part of the range of possible
environments is virtually inevitable), will develop primitive
self-replicating mechanisms which will refine themselves over time to
adapt to their given environment. As well as this they will affect the
environment they operate in leading to further complexities in the
mechanism, which by now will already be de facto evolution, and
furthermore, some of the corrupted copies will find themselves suited
to different aspects of the environment. Given that the envirmonment
is by no means uniform, or static, this adds another level of
complexity to the process without even the necessity for multi-celled
organisms.
A long-winded sleight of hand which says precisely that a dead
mineral cosmos spontaneously produced a living intelligence it
totally lacked itself - the equivalent of a magical fairy tale.
Alen
Your comprehension failure is not my sleight of hand. At least I now
know which you are out of stupid and dishonest.
Indeed. Your original post was excellent, and this Alen twit dismissed
it in a quite vile manner. Pity.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
28 Nov 2005 06:25:43 PM |
|
|
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1133191506.607160.182630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> suddenly spluttered:
bob young wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
that MAN CREATED GODS.
Well, YOU said so, so it MUST be true.
to ANYONE with an OUNCE of common sense it is !
Sure! What person with common sense would fail to accept
that a dead mineral cosmos, with no consciousness at all,
could spontaneously, magically produce living, conscious
beings, and that anyone who thought that only a being that
has life can produce beings with life, and only a being that
has intelligence can produce beings with intelligence, must
be indulging in arbitrary myths and fantasies.
Perhaps an ounce does, after all, describe an upper limit to
the common sense of some atheists.
Alen
Alen, I suspect that you know that is not what most, if any atheists
say. For a start, the compelling reason to be an atheist in most
cases, certainly where one has come from a monotheistic culture, is
that one doesn't belive in magic of any kind, and an assertion that
some supernatural being created everything is therefore ruled out as
only it is by special pleading, which is irrational, can any belief in
God be sustained.
How did life come about? Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody knows
for certain. It is even possible that nobody will ever know exactly
how, but postulating explanations which are absolutely impossible
isn't helping anyone. It is perfectly possible that, over time,
organic molecules - which we know exist all over the universe - given
the right environment (which, as part of the range of possible
environments is virtually inevitable), will develop primitive
self-replicating mechanisms which will refine themselves over time to
adapt to their given environment. As well as this they will affect the
environment they operate in leading to further complexities in the
mechanism, which by now will already be de facto evolution, and
furthermore, some of the corrupted copies will find themselves suited
to different aspects of the environment. Given that the envirmonment
is by no means uniform, or static, this adds another level of
complexity to the process without even the necessity for multi-celled
organisms.
A long-winded sleight of hand which says precisely that a dead
mineral cosmos spontaneously produced a living intelligence it
totally lacked itself - the equivalent of a magical fairy tale.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 01:55:16 AM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 03:17:28 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
02 Dec 2005 11:03:09 AM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1133234248.758746.273250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Alen
That also shows, that we are God's eyes and ears.
Pastor Frank
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AkreM" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
03 Dec 2005 05:23:16 AM |
|
|
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
Not true.....Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Just answer it!
Michael
http://www.geocities.com/mikeakrem/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
03 Dec 2005 11:50:02 PM |
|
|
AkreM wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
Not true.....Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Just answer it!
===>The egg, of course.
It was produced by a bird that was ancestral to the chicken, but
not yet a chicken, i.e. a genetically changed egg. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AkreM" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
04 Dec 2005 01:38:12 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
AkreM wrote:
Not true.....Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Just answer it!
===>The egg, of course.
It was produced by a bird that was ancestral to the chicken, but
not yet a chicken, i.e. a genetically changed egg. -- L.
Actually the Chicken came first. If we go with the written word of God,
(Gen 2:6-7) "but streams came up from the Earth and watered the whole
surface of the ground --The Lord God formed the man from the dust of
the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".....If we
go with science, we came from the water and evolved from that point on.
Both versions symolblize the same meaning.
Gods version says we came up from water (Streams covered the surface of
the Earth)
Sciences version say's pretty much the same thing. I don't know what
kinda egg you are seeing.
Keep in mind it is also written God created all living creatures
according to their kind along with birds to fly above the Earth, across
the expance. Not the egg. Show me an egg that can fly.
Michael
http://www.geocities.com/mikeakrem/
.....and what about God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
04 Dec 2005 05:17:03 AM |
|
|
AkreM wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
AkreM wrote:
Not true.....Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Just answer it!
===>The egg, of course.
It was produced by a bird that was ancestral to the chicken, but
not yet a chicken, i.e. a genetically changed egg. -- L.
Actually the Chicken came first. If we go with the written word of God,
(Gen 2:6-7) "but streams came up from the Earth and watered the whole
surface of the ground --The Lord God formed the man from the dust of
the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".....If we
go with science, we came from the water and evolved from that point on.
Both versions symolblize the same meaning.
===>An extraterrestrial sculpting the first man and the animals out of mud
and blowing air into their noses is just one of hundreds of creation fables.
Gods version says we came up from water (Streams covered the surface of
the Earth)
===>You LIE!
1. It is not any "God's word"
2. It does not say that anything "came up from water".
Species EVOLVE.
Before there was a "chicken", there was a mother bird that
laid a mutated egg, out of which hatched the first chicken.
Of course to your infantile thinking the biblical fable is much
easier to understand. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AkreM" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
04 Dec 2005 05:49:36 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
AkreM wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
AkreM wrote:
Not true.....Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Just answer it!
===>The egg, of course.
It was produced by a bird that was ancestral to the chicken, but
not yet a chicken, i.e. a genetically changed egg. -- L.
Actually the Chicken came first. If we go with the written word of God,
(Gen 2:6-7) "but streams came up from the Earth and watered the whole
surface of the ground --The Lord God formed the man from the dust of
the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".....If we
go with science, we came from the water and evolved from that point on.
Both versions symolblize the same meaning.
===>An extraterrestrial sculpting the first man and the animals out of mud
and blowing air into their noses is just one of hundreds of creation fables.
Gods version says we came up from water (Streams covered the surface of
the Earth)
===>You LIE!
1. It is not any "God's word"
2. It does not say that anything "came up from water".
Species EVOLVE.
Before there was a "chicken", there was a mother bird that
laid a mutated egg, out of which hatched the first chicken.
Of course to your infantile thinking the biblical fable is much
easier to understand. -- L.
Behind me Satan! You know scripture and the truth! be gone!
Michael
http://www.geocities.com/mikeakrem/
....and what about God?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 03:49:22 AM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
The typical bigoted stupidity of the Christian who is incapable of
thinking outside the box.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
The idiot who thinks his non-sequitur is something profound. Who is
too stupid to grasp that he has to demonstrate its existence before
reaching that "conclusion".
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 12:25:36 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:mojno1ltgqqugieavf7f6beg7nndtc3o79@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
The typical bigoted stupidity of the Christian who is incapable of
thinking outside the box.
Yet you spend much of your time fratinizing with these types of individuals.
You must have a really boring life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
30 Nov 2005 02:57:44 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fNXif.43816$2k5.37273@dukeread09...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:mojno1ltgqqugieavf7f6beg7nndtc3o79@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
The typical bigoted stupidity of the Christian who is incapable of
thinking outside the box.
Yet you spend much of your time fratinizing with these types of
individuals. You must have a really boring life.
Well said, Bill. Atheists waste their entire lives talking to whom they
consider deluded and superstitious religious morons. <snort>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
30 Nov 2005 11:28:43 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:1133319464.011056e00c7bcbaf7f95a6c00640bf9f@fe5.teranews.com...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fNXif.43816$2k5.37273@dukeread09...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:mojno1ltgqqugieavf7f6beg7nndtc3o79@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had
to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
The typical bigoted stupidity of the Christian who is incapable of
thinking outside the box.
Yet you spend much of your time fratinizing with these types of
individuals. You must have a really boring life.
Well said, Bill. Atheists waste their entire lives talking to whom they
consider deluded and superstitious religious morons. <snort>
And they can't figure out why, or even consider why.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 08:16:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:57:44 +0000, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote:
Well said, Bill. Atheists waste their entire lives talking to whom they
consider deluded and superstitious religious morons. <snort>
No, as it says in the FAQ, alt.atheism is for atheists to talk to
other atheists. It's you superstitious religious morons that are
posting to the wrong newsgroup and won't go away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 10:26:41 PM |
|
|
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gjkuo1hibgfgpbeukfjjh0slcn3g92b1oq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:57:44 +0000, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote:
Well said, Bill. Atheists waste their entire lives talking to whom
they
consider deluded and superstitious religious morons. <snort>
No, as it says in the FAQ, alt.atheism is for atheists to talk to
other atheists. It's you superstitious religious morons that are
posting to the wrong newsgroup and won't go away.
Actually, it's the other way around. The atheists are the ones who
cross-post into the Christian newsgroups. Christians respond to those
messages and then get blamed for the cross-postings. If atheists wouldn't
cross-post in the first place, none of this would happen. Christians do not
cross-post in alt.atheism unless the messages are already cross-posted by
atheists. Just take a look at the original messages. Time after time I see
attacks on Christians posted by atheists that are originally cross-posted by
atheists in Christian newsgroups. I have never seen it the other way
around.
Nice try though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
02 Dec 2005 01:39:28 AM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gjkuo1hibgfgpbeukfjjh0slcn3g92b1oq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:57:44 +0000, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote:
Well said, Bill. Atheists waste their entire lives talking to whom
they
consider deluded and superstitious religious morons. <snort>
No, as it says in the FAQ, alt.atheism is for atheists to talk to
other atheists. It's you superstitious religious morons that are
posting to the wrong newsgroup and won't go away.
Actually, it's the other way around. The atheists are the ones who
cross-post into the Christian newsgroups.
In this particular case you are quite right - this was started by
"Bill"
a rather evangelical atheist.
A type I find irritating.
In General I would say it runs about 80 - 20 theist vs atheist as to
"Who started it!"
Just from my personal observations.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
30 Nov 2005 11:44:10 PM |
|
|
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fNXif.43816$2k5.37273@dukeread09...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:mojno1ltgqqugieavf7f6beg7nndtc3o79@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
The typical bigoted stupidity of the Christian who is incapable of
thinking outside the box.
Yet you spend much of your time fratinizing with these types of
individuals. You must have a really boring life.
Well said, Bill. Atheists waste their entire lives talking to whom they
consider deluded and superstitious religious morons.
===>Which is exactly what you happen to be. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "666" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 12:43:15 PM |
|
|
I AM REAL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 03:22:57 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 04:43:15 -0800, "666"
<taphin@ntu.edu.sg> spake thusly:
I AM REAL!
Another atheist troll with no life and nothing better
to do. (:
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Remove the "123" and "321"
from email to email me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 04:20:26 AM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in
<1133234248.758746.273250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Even if your claim were true, which it is not, there is still no reason
to believe that the God you worship has to exist.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 12:44:24 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
If you try to use logic to understand God, you'll never succeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 10:02:33 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:T2Yif.44093$2k5.3269@dukeread09...
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
If you try to use logic to understand God, you'll never succeed.
Don't believe in objective verifiable facts, just believe what I claim.
Really???
You must assume the world is made up of nothing but moronic idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
30 Nov 2005 12:55:03 AM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:T2Yif.44093$2k5.3269@dukeread09...
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
If you try to use logic to understand God, you'll never succeed.
What Bible do these people read?
How can one brags about having read the Bible, then come up
with question such: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?
It seems to me that this Fucking Bill may have read the Bible but
has reading comprehension problem.
He doesn't understand why God befriended Abraham
He doen't understand why God singled out Abraham from among
pagan, animists, polythiets, sun worshippers, river worshippers,
and people sacrifying bulls to idols
He doen't understand why God chose Israel and gave them the Law/Torah.
He doesn't understand the second Law, that is to say
Moses's farewell speech at the foot of Sinai Mount or Deuteronomy
He doessn't understand why Moses constantly say, Hear O Israel...
He doen't understand what is meant by Monotheism.
He doen't understand CHRISTIANITY.
In Christianity he doesn't understand the New Covenant which put
an end to animal sacrifice, nor does he understand Christianity
in its old covenant that is to say Islam.
The heirs of the Enlightenment are the biggest fools who ever
walked planet EARTH.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
29 Nov 2005 05:30:47 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
If you try to use logic to understand God, you'll never succeed.
===>Good point.
"God" is an escape from inquiry,
not a logical construct. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 12:09:00 AM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
If you try to use logic to understand God, you'll never succeed.
To seek to understand a non thing is an error.
Any understanding you *think* you have will be nonsense - hence
Theology.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 12:53:25 AM |
|
|
<m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1133395740.235777.163210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To seek to understand a non thing is an error.
Any understanding you *think* you have will be nonsense - hence
Theology.
You are going nowhere with this.
You are wasting your time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
