Religions > Atheism > Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 May 2004 07:36:52 PM |
| Object: |
Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
"I came to carry out the struggle, not to kill people. Even now, and you can
look at me: am I a savage person? My conscience is clear."
- Pol Pot
Just gotta love those communists eh? Seriously, what has the whole atheist
thing brought to the world, other than maniacal mass murderers or witty
smart-asses?
H.B.
.
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
02 Jun 2004 09:29:57 AM |
|
|
"Earl Camembert" <nospam@forme.org> wrote in message
news:9atpb09auakre3irt6a5u6mm8cggotb8ic@4ax.com...
Yahweh and Allah are one and the same. The followers of that demon do
more killing to this day then any other religion. You are at hart evil
people and follow an evil god.
Oh bull *****! there is no such thing as evil....or demons.
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/evil.htm
Besides all this killing ***** (like that in Deuteronomy, Tirebiter) has all
to about only passing on your genes to the next generation.
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 07:16:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 wrote:
... every living human being for that matter, falls
short of perfection.
What is perfection?
Who decides?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 08:05:07 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 wrote:
... every living human being for that matter, falls
short of perfection.
What is perfection?
Who decides?
Walgreens.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 09:15:36 PM |
|
|
On 1-Jun-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
What is perfection?
Who decides?
In this particular instance, EvilEd decides it would seem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
31 May 2004 07:40:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
God is everywhere and everyWHEN.
There is no God. Cannot possibly be one. The very idea of God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator depends upon the argument that there
must be a first cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument is one
that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God,
which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
31 May 2004 09:50:40 PM |
|
|
In article <2gQuc.25015$IB.22762@attbi_s04>, Dixit AKA Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
hughbetcha@yessiree.ca wrote:
God is everywhere and everyWHEN.
There is no God. Cannot possibly be one.
So Septic Says, but cannot provide any evidence for his belief.
The very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause/creator depends
upon the argument that there must be a first cause,
The idea that there MUST be a God might depend on whether there MUST be
a first cause, though Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has not
established that, but the idea that there MIGHT be a God cannot require
that there MUST be a first cause, only that there might be.
Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has again proved himself
incapable of using English correctly. "MIGHT" and "MUST" have different
meanings which Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, habitually and
deliberately conflates in order to deceive.
and, as Russell points out
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has no idea of what Russell points out.
Certaily not the lies that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, attributes
to him.
"The argument that there MUST be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it MAY just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
02 Jun 2004 04:47:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 22:13:54 GMT, wrote:
On 30-May-2004, (William) wrote:
Why should he be omnipotent? The term 'omnipotent' is pretty
meaningless anyway. If God cannot lie or change his mind then there
are things he cannot do that I can do - that doesn't sound very
omnipotent to me.
That's an interesting twist of logic, but lying and changing one's mind are
flaws, of which God has none. But, you are are right, omnipotent is not an
accurate word. I like omnipresent. God is everywhere and everyWHEN.
So he's everywhere, but a bit impotent. In fact there seem to be a
whole host of things he cannot do. And many of these things we mortals
can do perfectly OK. He cannot speak plain English (or Chinese or
Spanish) or write things down like the rest of us. He cannot even
'inspire' mortals to get his message down and preserve it without it
getting so garbled that it has to have a mega institution that costs
billions a year to try and untangle it - and it still fails. With all
the time and resources in the world he still cannot create sentient
beings without thousands of design errors and apparently HAS to
include pain and suffering.
And, despite being omnipresent, he cannot provide a scrap of objective
testable evidence that he exists (anywhere).
nor would He be worthy of our worship.
Does he have to be?
Uhhh.... Yes.
How come? Maybe he has to be because otherwise you would be very
disappointed.
But since, as you admit, the scriptures are a "compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting,
raving" and none of it contains one word that Jesus wrote himself and
very little can be claimed to have been written by anyone who actually
met him, any idea of what Jesus left behind must be open to serious
question.
The gospels are narratives, not poetry or prophecy. Two were written by
eyewitnesses and the other two were written based on accounts from
eyewitnesses.
And who might these eyewitnesses be? The synoptic gospels were
anonymous and the names arbitrarily appended in the 2nd century. And
no-one really knows who the John was of the John's gospel and anyway
it didn't turn up until long after any possible eyewitness would have
been dead.
Because He said He did.
Where?
(2 Samuel 23: 1-2) Now these [be] the last words of David. David the son of
Jesse said, and the man [who was] raised up on high, the anointed of the God
of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of the LORD
spake by me, and his word [was] in my tongue.
[snipped other biblical references]
In case you have forgotten, the question was "And, on what basis do
you claim that God had anything to do with the bible?"
Quoting the bible is circular referencing.
Free will requires clear and unambiguously informed decisions. It
makes no sense to have free will when the options before you are
garbled and ambiguous and open to the vagaries of interpretation
I would disagree with you, unless you think life is a giant game of
Jeopardy!
No, I meant just what I said. To make a free will choice you have to
be properly informed what the options are. If they are garbled and
open to all kinds of interpretation you do not have a properly
informed choice.
You mean like misery inducing and debilitating diseases, deadly
viruses and bacteria, thousands of design defects in the human genome,
natural disasters which always seem to hit the poor and disadvantaged
the hardest, cancers etc. We are listening!!
Oh dear. The pathetic humans can't handle their free will.
What's the above got to do with free will, except that they all
severely limit the exercise of it? A child who dies from a genetic
disease or a viral infection has lost a whole lifetime of exercising
its free will. Someone who is crippled through disease or genetic
defects has fewer free choices.
Well, we can't go
back to the Garden, so we'll just have to tough it out. God gave us the
faculties to overcome most adversity.
Not for the millions who don't. Not for the millions who are
completely crushed by adversity. Not for the tens of thousands who can
never overcome it and, in despair, take their own lives (and that
includes many Christians). You are getting close the obscene doctrine
that God needs to kick folk in the teeth so that he can sell them a
new set of dentures.
Didn't you know that with the advances of modern science, there is no
logical reason why *anyone* on Earth should starve?
Well science is doing it's best to put right what God has done, or
failed to do, but it has a very long way to go. And the fact that the
greatest threat to our hospitals is infections shows that science even
has to battle against him at the point where it tries to put things
right.
I'll leave that to the omnipotent, omniscient creator who designed the
whole thing, he'll know.
Well, you can just sit back and wait for Him to bonk you on the head with
"Reality for Dummies". I'm curious about DNA, quantum science and
cosmology... other ways He may leave His mark on the world..
Oh, there's no problem there. I have books on each of those subject on
my shelf now. They are written clearly and unambiguously so that even
I can understand what the writer wanted to say. But, of course, the
writer was just a mere mortal so we expect that.
The concept of apostolic succession was invented by the Church. The
bit in Matthew it was allegedly based on simply says that Peter will
be the founder of the Church.
That's right. "Upon this rock I shall build my Church..." How was St. Peter
supposed to do that without leadership and authority?
Well he lost out to Paul pretty quickly and Paul became the 'rock' for
the Church and most of the various denominations are based on his
teachings. No need for inventing doctrines of AS.
And the track record of the Catholic Church doesn't inspire more confidence
than the rest. Having to apologize for it's atrocious treatment of heretics
(who turned out to be right all along)
Heretics? If you mean the Gnostics, Arians, Docetists... they WERE wrong,
and they weren't treated atrociously... If you mean the poor saps who
victimized by the Inquisition, most, I think, were innocent, but some were
wrong as well (a heretic is a heretic, what can I say?)
What you can say is that what is a heresy to you is just another
person's doctrine. That's the problem with revealed Truths - you
cannot argue on rational grounds against a Truth that is revealed to
someone else.
And the heresy of heliocentricism was right. And the doctrine of the
Trinity was heretical in the early church.
But NOBODY has the right to inflict torture or imprisonment on
another person because of their beliefs.
But you can kill whole communities because of their beliefs if God
tells you to (eg, the many examples in the OT)
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
02 Jun 2004 07:23:34 PM |
|
|
On 2-Jun-2004, (William) wrote:
So he's everywhere, but a bit impotent. In fact there seem to be a
whole host of things he cannot do. And many of these things we mortals
can do perfectly OK. He cannot speak plain English (or Chinese or
Spanish) or write things down like the rest of us.
We invented English and Chinese ourselves, not to mention alphbets and
writing. All with the faculties He gave us.
He cannot even
'inspire' mortals to get his message down and preserve it without it
getting so garbled that it has to have a mega institution that costs
billions a year to try and untangle it - and it still fails.
If He is capable of frustration, then perhaps He is. Mortals with their free
will manage to screw just about everything up. Free will was our idea too,
don't forget.
With all
the time and resources in the world he still cannot create sentient
beings without thousands of design errors and apparently HAS to
include pain and suffering.
Our souls are flawless. Our physical bodies are bound to the laws of nature,
and who knows, could still be works in progress...
And, despite being omnipresent, he cannot provide a scrap of objective
testable evidence that he exists (anywhere).
Everywhere! Silly atheist! It's everywhere!
How come? Maybe he has to be because otherwise you would be very
disappointed.
Yes, if He was just a super-being, He would be not be God. However, the
nature of the universe confirms that He *is* God.
And who might these eyewitnesses be? The synoptic gospels were
anonymous and the names arbitrarily appended in the 2nd century. And
no-one really knows who the John was of the John's gospel and anyway
it didn't turn up until long after any possible eyewitness would have
been dead.
Sts. John and Matthew.
It's a certainty that St. John, the apostle, wrote the gospel that bears his
name. Matthew on the other hand, has been harder to trace. What is certain
is that he wrote a gospel in Hebrew, but no one is 100% certain that it is
the source of the Greek manuscripts that form the 'official' Gospel of
Matthew today.
In case you have forgotten, the question was "And, on what basis do
you claim that God had anything to do with the bible?"
Quoting the bible is circular referencing.
The writers themselves give credit to God. I don't know what more you want.
No, I meant just what I said. To make a free will choice you have to
be properly informed what the options are. If they are garbled and
open to all kinds of interpretation you do not have a properly
informed choice.
Nobody said anything about an informed choice. No human being has ever made
a fully informed choice, the universe is way too complicated. You can make
guesses and assumptions, and have faith.
What's the above got to do with free will, except that they all
severely limit the exercise of it? A child who dies from a genetic
disease or a viral infection has lost a whole lifetime of exercising
its free will. Someone who is crippled through disease or genetic
defects has fewer free choices.
Not for the millions who don't. Not for the millions who are
completely crushed by adversity. Not for the tens of thousands who can
never overcome it and, in despair, take their own lives (and that
includes many Christians). You are getting close the obscene doctrine
that God needs to kick folk in the teeth so that he can sell them a
new set of dentures.
Oh please.... Quit whining! We have *free will* We are subject to nature's
laws (or chaos, depending on how you look at it.) Occasionally it kicks us
in the *****, and the rest of the problems we create for ourselves. God has
given us a way to *not* create problems for ourselves, and to endure the
other ones.
Well science is doing it's best to put right what God has done, or
failed to do, but it has a very long way to go. And the fact that the
greatest threat to our hospitals is infections shows that science even
has to battle against him at the point where it tries to put things
right.
Oh, there's no problem there. I have books on each of those subject on
my shelf now. They are written clearly and unambiguously so that even
I can understand what the writer wanted to say. But, of course, the
writer was just a mere mortal so we expect that.
God gave us the faculties to improve ourselves. One of them is the big
brains we all get. They have incredible, unknown potential. Some put this
tool to good use, and try to make life better for everyone, some try to
unravel the universe... and someday, we will do it. Others, unfortunatly,
sit around, mad at God because He expects them to think for themselves.
Well he lost out to Paul pretty quickly and Paul became the 'rock' for
the Church and most of the various denominations are based on his
teachings. No need for inventing doctrines of AS
Peter was indeed the rock. He established himself in Rome while Paul spread
the faith. I think they fufilled two different missions.
What you can say is that what is a heresy to you is just another
person's doctrine. That's the problem with revealed Truths - you
cannot argue on rational grounds against a Truth that is revealed to
someone else.
Part of the Church's mission is to preserve the truth as it has been
revealed to her. If there is a truth, then everything else is... not the
truth. It's the main reason the Church has remained one, holy, catholic and
apostolic for 2000 years.
But you can kill whole communities because of their beliefs if God
tells you to (eg, the many examples in the OT)
Let me repeat myself.
NOBODY has the right to inflict torture or imprisonment on another person
because of their beliefs.
H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
02 Jun 2004 10:00:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:23:34 GMT, wrote:
On 2-Jun-2004, (William) wrote:
So he's everywhere, but a bit impotent. In fact there seem to be a
whole host of things he cannot do. And many of these things we mortals
can do perfectly OK. He cannot speak plain English (or Chinese or
Spanish) or write things down like the rest of us.
We invented English and Chinese ourselves, not to mention alphbets and
writing. All with the faculties He gave us.
What kind of answer is that meant to be?
Because we invented language God cannot speak to us? And because we
invented writing God cannot write anything down? He sounds even more
handicapped than he first appeared.
He cannot even
'inspire' mortals to get his message down and preserve it without it
getting so garbled that it has to have a mega institution that costs
billions a year to try and untangle it - and it still fails.
If He is capable of frustration, then perhaps He is. Mortals with their free
will manage to screw just about everything up. Free will was our idea too,
don't forget.
You are not making any sense. So far, your responses bear no relation
to the points you are responding to.
With all
the time and resources in the world he still cannot create sentient
beings without thousands of design errors and apparently HAS to
include pain and suffering.
Our souls are flawless. Our physical bodies are bound to the laws of nature,
and who knows, could still be works in progress...
You are still making no sense. What the heck have any of your
responses had to to with the points you are responding to? Are you
reading anything before responding?
And, despite being omnipresent, he cannot provide a scrap of objective
testable evidence that he exists (anywhere).
Everywhere! Silly atheist! It's everywhere!
No. 'anywhere' is the word. If he cannot provide a scrap of evidence
that he is anywhere it is rather pointless to claim that he is
everywhere
How come? Maybe he has to be because otherwise you would be very
disappointed.
Yes, if He was just a super-being, He would be not be God. However, the
nature of the universe confirms that He *is* God.
The bit you snipped was your claim that he had to be "worthy of our
worship". My question was "why does he have to be?". What the heck has
your response got to do with that?
In case you have forgotten, the question was "And, on what basis do
you claim that God had anything to do with the bible?"
Quoting the bible is circular referencing.
The writers themselves give credit to God. I don't know what more you want.
I would want something other than circular referencing. If the writers
say that their writings are from God because they say they are then
that is circular referencing.
But I'm not getting any sensible responses from you so I guess I have
accept that maybe there aren't any.
No, I meant just what I said. To make a free will choice you have to
be properly informed what the options are. If they are garbled and
open to all kinds of interpretation you do not have a properly
informed choice.
Nobody said anything about an informed choice.
I did. That is because free will requires having a properly informed
choice.
No human being has ever made a fully informed choice,
I said 'properly' informed choice. A properly informed choice is one
where a person knows, as far as is humanly possible, what the options
are that are before them before they make their choice.
If the options are garbled and open to all kinds of interpretation
(ie, the scriptures as described by you as "a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting,
raving") then we do not have a properly informed choice.
the universe is way too complicated. You can make
guesses and assumptions, and have faith.
Or you can have properly informed choices.
What's the above got to do with free will, except that they all
severely limit the exercise of it? A child who dies from a genetic
disease or a viral infection has lost a whole lifetime of exercising
its free will. Someone who is crippled through disease or genetic
defects has fewer free choices.
Not for the millions who don't. Not for the millions who are
completely crushed by adversity. Not for the tens of thousands who can
never overcome it and, in despair, take their own lives (and that
includes many Christians). You are getting close the obscene doctrine
that God needs to kick folk in the teeth so that he can sell them a
new set of dentures.
Oh please.... Quit whining! We have *free will* We are subject to nature's
laws (or chaos, depending on how you look at it.) Occasionally it kicks us
in the *****, and the rest of the problems we create for ourselves. God has
given us a way to *not* create problems for ourselves, and to endure the
other ones.
Another non-answer. I'm getting a bit ***** with this.
Well science is doing it's best to put right what God has done, or
failed to do, but it has a very long way to go. And the fact that the
greatest threat to our hospitals is infections shows that science even
has to battle against him at the point where it tries to put things
right.
Oh, there's no problem there. I have books on each of those subject on
my shelf now. They are written clearly and unambiguously so that even
I can understand what the writer wanted to say. But, of course, the
writer was just a mere mortal so we expect that.
God gave us the faculties to improve ourselves. One of them is the big
brains we all get. They have incredible, unknown potential. Some put this
tool to good use, and try to make life better for everyone, some try to
unravel the universe... and someday, we will do it. Others, unfortunatly,
sit around, mad at God because He expects them to think for themselves.
So, rather than get his message across clearly and un-ambiguously (as
a human writer would do if he had something important to say), he
plays silly puzzle games to see who can unravel it. Thanks. I take it,
therefore, that God's message isn't the slightest bit important to
humanity. The tragedy is that tens of millions of people have died
through different people thinking it WAS important and that they have
deciphered it.
What you can say is that what is a heresy to you is just another
person's doctrine. That's the problem with revealed Truths - you
cannot argue on rational grounds against a Truth that is revealed to
someone else.
Part of the Church's mission is to preserve the truth as it has been
revealed to her. If there is a truth, then everything else is... not the
truth.
Yep. They all say that.
It's the main reason the Church has remained one, holy, catholic and
apostolic for 2000 years.
But you can kill whole communities because of their beliefs if God
tells you to (eg, the many examples in the OT)
Let me repeat myself. NOBODY has the right to inflict torture or
imprisonment on another person because of their beliefs.
So it's perfectly OK to kill (by running them through with the sword)
whole communities of men, women and children because of their beliefs
as long as you don't 'torture' or imprison them. I guess there's a
moral in there somewhere.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "flymx" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
09 Jun 2004 10:32:21 AM |
|
|
"William" <> wrote in message
news:40be8d46.6080589@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:23:34 GMT, wrote:
On 2-Jun-2004, (William) wrote:
So he's everywhere, but a bit impotent. In fact there seem to be a
whole host of things he cannot do. And many of these things we mortals
can do perfectly OK. He cannot speak plain English (or Chinese or
Spanish) or write things down like the rest of us.
We invented English and Chinese ourselves, not to mention alphbets and
writing. All with the faculties He gave us.
What kind of answer is that meant to be?
Because we invented language God cannot speak to us? And because we
invented writing God cannot write anything down? He sounds even more
handicapped than he first appeared.
He cannot even
'inspire' mortals to get his message down and preserve it without it
getting so garbled that it has to have a mega institution that costs
billions a year to try and untangle it - and it still fails.
If He is capable of frustration, then perhaps He is. Mortals with their
free
will manage to screw just about everything up. Free will was our idea
too,
don't forget.
You are not making any sense. So far, your responses bear no relation
to the points you are responding to.
With all
the time and resources in the world he still cannot create sentient
beings without thousands of design errors and apparently HAS to
include pain and suffering.
Our souls are flawless. Our physical bodies are bound to the laws of
nature,
and who knows, could still be works in progress...
You are still making no sense. What the heck have any of your
responses had to to with the points you are responding to? Are you
reading anything before responding?
And, despite being omnipresent, he cannot provide a scrap of objective
testable evidence that he exists (anywhere).
Everywhere! Silly atheist! It's everywhere!
No. 'anywhere' is the word. If he cannot provide a scrap of evidence
that he is anywhere it is rather pointless to claim that he is
everywhere
How come? Maybe he has to be because otherwise you would be very
disappointed.
Yes, if He was just a super-being, He would be not be God. However, the
nature of the universe confirms that He *is* God.
The bit you snipped was your claim that he had to be "worthy of our
worship". My question was "why does he have to be?". What the heck has
your response got to do with that?
In case you have forgotten, the question was "And, on what basis do
you claim that God had anything to do with the bible?"
Quoting the bible is circular referencing.
The writers themselves give credit to God. I don't know what more you
want.
I would want something other than circular referencing. If the writers
say that their writings are from God because they say they are then
that is circular referencing.
But I'm not getting any sensible responses from you so I guess I have
accept that maybe there aren't any.
No, I meant just what I said. To make a free will choice you have to
be properly informed what the options are. If they are garbled and
open to all kinds of interpretation you do not have a properly
informed choice.
Nobody said anything about an informed choice.
I did. That is because free will requires having a properly informed
choice.
No human being has ever made a fully informed choice,
I said 'properly' informed choice. A properly informed choice is one
where a person knows, as far as is humanly possible, what the options
are that are before them before they make their choice.
If the options are garbled and open to all kinds of interpretation
(ie, the scriptures as described by you as "a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting,
raving") then we do not have a properly informed choice.
the universe is way too complicated. You can make
guesses and assumptions, and have faith.
Or you can have properly informed choices.
What's the above got to do with free will, except that they all
severely limit the exercise of it? A child who dies from a genetic
disease or a viral infection has lost a whole lifetime of exercising
its free will. Someone who is crippled through disease or genetic
defects has fewer free choices.
Not for the millions who don't. Not for the millions who are
completely crushed by adversity. Not for the tens of thousands who can
never overcome it and, in despair, take their own lives (and that
includes many Christians). You are getting close the obscene doctrine
that God needs to kick folk in the teeth so that he can sell them a
new set of dentures.
Oh please.... Quit whining! We have *free will* We are subject to
nature's
laws (or chaos, depending on how you look at it.) Occasionally it kicks
us
in the *****, and the rest of the problems we create for ourselves. God has
given us a way to *not* create problems for ourselves, and to endure the
other ones.
Another non-answer. I'm getting a bit ***** with this.
Well science is doing it's best to put right what God has done, or
failed to do, but it has a very long way to go. And the fact that the
greatest threat to our hospitals is infections shows that science even
has to battle against him at the point where it tries to put things
right.
Oh, there's no problem there. I have books on each of those subject on
my shelf now. They are written clearly and unambiguously so that even
I can understand what the writer wanted to say. But, of course, the
writer was just a mere mortal so we expect that.
God gave us the faculties to improve ourselves. One of them is the big
brains we all get. They have incredible, unknown potential. Some put this
tool to good use, and try to make life better for everyone, some try to
unravel the universe... and someday, we will do it. Others, unfortunatly,
sit around, mad at God because He expects them to think for themselves.
So, rather than get his message across clearly and un-ambiguously (as
a human writer would do if he had something important to say), he
plays silly puzzle games to see who can unravel it. Thanks. I take it,
therefore, that God's message isn't the slightest bit important to
humanity. The tragedy is that tens of millions of people have died
through different people thinking it WAS important and that they have
deciphered it.
What you can say is that what is a heresy to you is just another
person's doctrine. That's the problem with revealed Truths - you
cannot argue on rational grounds against a Truth that is revealed to
someone else.
Part of the Church's mission is to preserve the truth as it has been
revealed to her. If there is a truth, then everything else is... not the
truth.
Yep. They all say that.
It's the main reason the Church has remained one, holy, catholic and
apostolic for 2000 years.
But you can kill whole communities because of their beliefs if God
tells you to (eg, the many examples in the OT)
Let me repeat myself. NOBODY has the right to inflict torture or
imprisonment on another person because of their beliefs.
So it's perfectly OK to kill (by running them through with the sword)
whole communities of men, women and children because of their beliefs
as long as you don't 'torture' or imprison them. I guess there's a
moral in there somewhere.
William
William.. I usually just lurk on this news group for the point/counterpoint
of religious rants ... but I gotta say .. your just kicking this guys *****
.... very entertaining ..
Dave.
"Kill all the gods and let people sort it out".
"Religions will never allow peace".
"logic has no place in religious society".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
02 Jun 2004 10:19:32 PM |
|
|
On 2-Jun-2004, (William) wrote:
What kind of answer is that meant to be?
You are not making any sense. So far, your responses bear no relation
to the points you are responding to.
You are still making no sense. What the heck have any of your
responses had to to with the points you are responding to? Are you
reading anything before responding?
What the heck has
your response got to do with that?
But I'm not getting any sensible responses from you so I guess I have
accept that maybe there aren't any.
Another non-answer. I'm getting a bit ***** with this.
Oh dear. I may have overestimated your intellectual capacity. Sorry about
that.
Me right. You wrong.
Better?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
03 Jun 2004 04:53:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 03:19:32 GMT, wrote:
On 2-Jun-2004, (William) wrote:
What kind of answer is that meant to be?
You are not making any sense. So far, your responses bear no relation
to the points you are responding to.
You are still making no sense. What the heck have any of your
responses had to to with the points you are responding to? Are you
reading anything before responding?
What the heck has
your response got to do with that?
But I'm not getting any sensible responses from you so I guess I have
accept that maybe there aren't any.
Another non-answer. I'm getting a bit ***** with this.
Oh dear. I may have overestimated your intellectual capacity. Sorry about
that.
Me right. You wrong. Better?
Thanks for leaving in my responses but carefully cutting out each of
your answers which had prompted them. That must be the best testimony
you could have given to my claim that your posts were non-answers.
And since you also snipped all the rest of my post I take it that you
were unable to refute any of the points I made. Thanks for that, too.
Many people just continue to bluff when they have nothing to say.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
03 Jun 2004 04:24:42 PM |
|
|
On 3-Jun-2004, (William) wrote:
Many people just continue to bluff when they have nothing to say.
...or bluster and feign ignorance, such as you did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 10:20:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:42:26 GMT, wrote:
Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat yapper,
so I'll just have to do my best...
In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium (the
wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as absolute
truth.
-God does not lie, or break promises
Sorry, he/they do. Quite often actually.
-God does not change His mind
That he (they?) do too. Not a few times, but a lot. For example, not a
line in the OT supports the trinity. Thus, your gods didn't even
realise they had a split personality until they had the NT written.
The Bible as they've compiled it (since AD 325) is a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting, raving
etc.
The OT was completed before 1 BE. Only the NT was compiled after 33
BE, and before 325 BE. Then it was formalized. Not on Nicea (Roger,
your input, please), but pretty close around that date.
Al lot of works *inspired* were thrown out. The gospels of Thomas and
Peter for example.
All of it inspired by God. Not dictated by God... but *inspired.*
That is your interpretation. And that of a church majority, I can add.
No offense. But that 'inspired' thingy was only thought off AFTER it
was proven to be man made. And not by the alleged authors.
(Despite what the fundalmentalists will tell you, it's the cornerstone of
the faith, not the entire faith itself.)
Do you realize what you just admitted here? That the churches over the
history of the church by far were utterly wrong. That 'inspired'
excuse is not older than 250 years at best. Before that, it was god's
literal word. As in 'god dictated this word for word to the writers'.
Anyhow, the wise fellows have to
figure out just what the heck God meant when He inspired the various writers
to write what they did. Not an easy task, but they have references...
No, they had their agendas. No references. Otherwise the NT wouldn't
be littered with stupid errors. The orthodoxy of the day didn't want
conflicting ideologies to defend themselves using the bible. That is
why the gospels of Peter and Thomas got rejected.
-The Sacred Tradition, all that Christians did and believed that was NOT
written down.
Yeah, and what a hoax that is.
-The natural law (of course)
What natural law? Gravity? The church[es] denied that as long as
possible too.
-The Holy Spirit. We have faith that the 'Helper' guides the Church fathers
in their decisions.
Sorry, that is hearsay. Unless you can proof this holy spirit of
course. The pope actually ordered his followers to accept that he -
and he only - has special access to that pigeon, in matters of the
faith. A good minority of xtians deny that. They are called
protestants.
-Science. History, psychology, anthropology, theology... it's all important.
True enough. Except for theology (not a exactly science, but a quasi
science) they proved, usually by sheer chance and certainly not
intentional your and any other religion impossible.
So, with a lot of research, prayer, meditation, deep thinking and such, we
have what we're sure is the truth as it was meant to be heard. Like a
nation's constitution, it's self amending, so it can be updated as new
things are revealed to us.
So science reveals us for example that Jericho was abandoned. Then all
of a sudden we have to take that part of the bible (the hebrews
touting their horns causing the rubble to collapse) metaphorical.
Personally, I think devout xtians do pray, meditate and -as far as
they are able to- think deeply what kind of stupid excuse they have to
think of next, when science does new discoveries. As it assuredly
will.
Slowly, your bible changed from your gods literal word, the real story
of history, into a metaphorical book with less and less significance.
We are now almost at the end of it. Practically everything in that
bible has been changed from literal to metaphorical. We know for
certain no Adam and no Eve existed. Meaning that eating an apple isn't
that bad. Thus, no "original sin". Then the "sacrifice" of jesus seems
somewhat .... shall we say: silly?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnkoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 08:40:12 PM |
|
|
In article <t4SdncbVWcg_QCXdRVn2sQ@giganews.com>, says...
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for even
atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
Don't you feel like an idiot for posting such BS? You should.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 08:41:28 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 01:40:12 +0000 in episode
<0Yauc.4656$H4.205@www.newsranger.com> we saw our hero Robibnkoff
<nospam@newsranger.com>:
In article <t4SdncbVWcg_QCXdRVn2sQ@giganews.com>,
says...
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for
even atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
Don't you feel like an idiot for posting such BS? You should.
Interesting isn't it? If it's "natural law" then who needs the religion?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 01:34:39 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.30.13.41.27.528180@hoo.com-amikchi...
On Sun, 30 May 2004 01:40:12 +0000 in episode
<0Yauc.4656$H4.205@www.newsranger.com> we saw our hero Robibnkoff
<nospam@newsranger.com>:
In article <t4SdncbVWcg_QCXdRVn2sQ@giganews.com>,
says...
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for
even atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
Don't you feel like an idiot for posting such BS? You should.
Interesting isn't it? If it's "natural law" then who needs the religion?
Apparently, a lot of Catholics is the obvious answer.
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 07:32:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:59:51 GMT, wrote:
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for even
atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
No. I feel just normal. Sorry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 05:20:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:59:51 GMT, wrote:
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for even
atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
We all feel special whether our sense of empathy was placed in our
psyche by some deity or whether it developed through natural
processes.
Those who propose that it was placed by some deity, however, have yet
to show that this deity exists and that he did it. In the absence of
an explanation for it we will still have it and will still feel
special.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 01:33:04 PM |
|
|
"William" <> wrote in message
news:40b9091a.227372@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:59:51 GMT, wrote:
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for
even
atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
We all feel special whether our sense of empathy was placed in our
psyche by some deity or whether it developed through natural
processes.
Those who propose that it was placed by some deity, however, have yet
to show that this deity exists and that he did it. In the absence of
an explanation for it we will still have it and will still feel
special.
Anything can be good or bad. Misplaced empathy can get you killed and often
does.
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
28 May 2004 05:33:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:40:02 +0000 in episode
<hfCdnX7aE-6OzyvdRVn2gw@giganews.com> we saw our hero
hughbetcha@yessiree.ca:
On 27-May-2004, (William) wrote:
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in the
name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian movement
- the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist political
despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not endorsed by the
'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in the name of a
particular brand of elitist communism...
...which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried away in
the name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity. They weren't
following the 'ideals' of Christianity any more than Stalin or Mao were
following the 'ideals' of atheism...
Atheism is simply lacking belief in any gods. How the hell do you "hold as
an ideal" the lack of belief in something?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
27 May 2004 07:07:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:40:02 GMT, wrote:
On 27-May-2004, (William) wrote:
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in
the name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian
movement - the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism...
...which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried away in the
name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity. They weren't following
the 'ideals' of Christianity any more than Stalin or Mao were following the
'ideals' of atheism...
"but they weren't really REALŪ christians..."
Tuning me pipes.
<McBetch fucked a sheep.wav>
Some cinnamon, laddy?
Marching off, with a cat firmly under the arm, biting the tail. (Makes
a very good imitation of bagpipes.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
27 May 2004 04:01:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:40:02 GMT, wrote:
On 27-May-2004, (William) wrote:
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in
the name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian
movement - the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism...
...which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried away in the
name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity.]
No, it was the Church of that age. It was done in the name of
Christianity and by the established Church. And it was done on the
biblical principles of defending the faith against false doctrine as
per the Old Testament where God commanded the Isrealites to destroy
those communities who might lead them astray.
No comparison.
William
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cap Tool" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 12:33:55 AM |
|
|
You must separate the General Inquision which occurred before the Spanish
Inquision and was supposed to eliminate certain heresies from the ranks of
Christians from the Spanish Inquision which was actually managed by
Ferdinand himself and not the Church.
The Spanish run Inquision was the violent and cruel affair, the prior
inquision involved mostly penances and investigation.
"William" <telige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
news:40b4076c.1004736@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:31:27 GMT, wrote:
On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
Communists do not = atheists.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."
-Karl Marx
And in the 60s there were many leading bishops who preached Marxism as
epitomizing the principles of Christianity.
Communism does not = atheism.
Among the gifts this religion thing has brought to the world:
Crusades
An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.
In those days religion was politics. And the Crusades were done in the
name of Christianity by Christians.
Inquisitions
In the entire 350 year history of the Spanish inquisition, about 30,000
people died, less than 100 a year. A good ol' atheist boy like Stalin
killed
that many before breakfast.
The Inquisition was done in the name of Christianity and endorsed by
the Church as a body. And does it offer as it's excuse that it didn't
murder as many people as some power crazy political despot?
And Stalin's atrocities were not done in the name of atheism.
Pogroms
Most of which were politically motivated... and the worst of which were
carried out by the communists... er... like Pol Pot.
Holocausts
I assume you mean 'the' holocaust. Now, the National Socialist Party
(Nazis)
was hardly a religious organization, but a decidedly atheist one.
Sexual (and other) abuse of children by the clergy.
Which occurs FAR less often than abuse in secular society.
Only because priests form a far less percentage of society. And what
an excuse!
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 07:24:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:33:55 GMT, "Cap Tool"
<capitalisttool@comcast.ent> continued showing off his lack of
historic knowledge:
You must separate the General Inquision which occurred before the Spanish
Inquision and was supposed to eliminate certain heresies from the ranks of
Christians from the Spanish Inquision which was actually managed by
Ferdinand himself and not the Church.
You couldn't be more wrong. The Spanish inquisition was indeed asked
for by the Spanish crown, but managed completely by the church. ANY
inquisition was managed by the church.
Of course you can always claim no inquisitor ever killed an accused.
Unless by accident. (Secular authorities were ordered to do the
burnings. God help the poor magistrate letting a heretic go free!)
The Spanish run Inquision was the violent and cruel affair, the prior
inquision involved mostly penances and investigation.
Again, entirely wrong. ALL inquisition was a cruel, violent and bloody
affair. Investigation was done with anonymous informers, who didn't
need any evidence whatsoever. The last inquisition ended in 1850 or
thereabouts when Rome was conquered by the Italians from the pope.
Actually, the inquisition still exists. Be it under a different name
and no physical torture. Just mental pressure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 07:54:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:24:04 +0700 in alt.atheism, Jos Flachs (Jos
Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:33:55 GMT, "Cap Tool"
<capitalisttool@comcast.ent> continued showing off his lack of
historic knowledge:
You must separate the General Inquision which occurred before the Spanish
Inquision and was supposed to eliminate certain heresies from the ranks of
Christians from the Spanish Inquision which was actually managed by
Ferdinand himself and not the Church.
You couldn't be more wrong. The Spanish inquisition was indeed asked
for by the Spanish crown, but managed completely by the church. ANY
inquisition was managed by the church.
Of course you can always claim no inquisitor ever killed an accused.
Unless by accident. (Secular authorities were ordered to do the
burnings. God help the poor magistrate letting a heretic go free!)
Oh, come one - the secular authorities were merely following
orders....
The Spanish run Inquision was the violent and cruel affair, the prior
inquision involved mostly penances and investigation.
Again, entirely wrong. ALL inquisition was a cruel, violent and bloody
affair. Investigation was done with anonymous informers, who didn't
need any evidence whatsoever.
And I'm glad to see that the theists we encounter hereabouts continue
the tradition.
The last inquisition ended in 1850 or
thereabouts when Rome was conquered by the Italians from the pope.
Actually, the inquisition still exists. Be it under a different name
and no physical torture. Just mental pressure.
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, IIRC.
But, and here's one for you:
I think that - historically - the decline of torture as a means of
judicial investigation is proportional to the rise of secularism in
government. It's one of those things I've been meaning to look into ..
he said...
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 09:16:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:33:55 GMT, "Cap Tool"
<capitalisttool@comcast.ent> wrote:
You must separate the General Inquision which occurred before the Spanish
Inquision and was supposed to eliminate certain heresies from the ranks of
Christians from the Spanish Inquision which was actually managed by
Ferdinand himself and not the Church.
The Spanish run Inquision was the violent and cruel affair, the prior
inquision involved mostly penances and investigation.
The actions of the Inquisition began in the middle of the first
century and was still operating in 1633 (Galileo Galilei brought
before the court of the Inquisition). The hounding down and death of
heretics by the Church was widespread right through Euorope at
different times during that period. The Inquisition in Spain was just
more violent. But the Church in Rome and France was a close second.
William
"William" <telige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:31:27 GMT, wrote:
On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
Communists do not = atheists.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."
-Karl Marx
And in the 60s there were many leading bishops who preached Marxism as
epitomizing the principles of Christianity.
Communism does not = atheism.
Among the gifts this religion thing has brought to the world:
Crusades
An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.
In those days religion was politics. And the Crusades were done in the
name of Christianity by Christians.
Inquisitions
In the entire 350 year history of the Spanish inquisition, about 30,000
people died, less than 100 a year. A good ol' atheist boy like Stalin
killed
that many before breakfast.
The Inquisition was done in the name of Christianity and endorsed by
the Church as a body. And does it offer as it's excuse that it didn't
murder as many people as some power crazy political despot?
And Stalin's atrocities were not done in the name of atheism.
Pogroms
Most of which were politically motivated... and the worst of which were
carried out by the communists... er... like Pol Pot.
Holocausts
I assume you mean 'the' holocaust. Now, the National Socialist Party
(Nazis)
was hardly a religious organization, but a decidedly atheist one.
Sexual (and other) abuse of children by the clergy.
Which occurs FAR less often than abuse in secular society.
Only because priests form a far less percentage of society. And what
an excuse!
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
25 May 2004 09:43:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:31:27 GMT, wrote:
Crusades
An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.
Nah. Motived mostly by Christian hatred. A deep, animal hatred, that's
intrinsic to Christianity itself and which has had caused millions
upon millions of deaths through-out history. Christians, all
Christians, are nothing more than sub-human psychopathic murderers.
All of them. No exceptions.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 12:58:28 PM |
|
|
"W. Syme" <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:19d44b67331865c6a54f5bc7a1634f52@news.1usenet.com...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:31:27 GMT, wrote:
Crusades
An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.
Nah. Motived mostly by Christian hatred. A deep, animal hatred, that's
intrinsic to Christianity itself and which has had caused millions
upon millions of deaths through-out history. Christians, all
Christians, are nothing more than sub-human psychopathic murderers.
All of them. No exceptions.
Woah there big guy. Here take a toke. <sound of deep inhale>. And another!
<deeper inhale>. There, feel any better?
Good. Now lets bash them religious nuts. No? Too mellow? Yah you're right.
Pass it over here dude.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen Deprivation
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 01:44:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:58:28 -0600, "Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net>
wrote:
"W. Syme" <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:19d44b67331865c6a54f5bc7a1634f52@news.1usenet.com...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:31:27 GMT, wrote:
Crusades
An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.
Nah. Motived mostly by Christian hatred. A deep, animal hatred, that's
intrinsic to Christianity itself and which has had caused millions
upon millions of deaths through-out history. Christians, all
Christians, are nothing more than sub-human psychopathic murderers.
All of them. No exceptions.
Woah there big guy. Here take a toke. <sound of deep inhale>. And another!
<deeper inhale>. There, feel any better?
Good. Now lets bash them religious nuts. No? Too mellow? Yah you're right.
Pass it over here dude.
Don't be scared, I was just being sarcastic. I couldn't think of an
appropriate answer to his nonsense, so I did some mirroring.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
