| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2005 10:33:11 PM |
| Object: |
Theophobia |
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 12:17:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:39:23 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
I don't see a problem with a 'first cause' being the 'cause' of all that
follows, and the first cause being without a cause.
I do see a problem.
The "first cause" argument was one of the famous "five fold ways" that
Aquinas published in the Summa Theologica, which by definition is a
work of religion. He presented these 5 religious arguments for
theologians to use when they were teaching dull people.
The problem is simple: The term "first" implies some kind of
arrangement in a heirarchy. But that is not the case with the Supreme
Being.
Best to stay away from any "first cause" argument.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 12:20:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:39:23 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:21:45 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:05:26 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:30:08 GMT, Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) <sob@sob.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity. At the very minimum, even if you adopt the Worldview of
Idealism, you know that you exist. You cannot prove it to anyone esle
within the Worldview of Idealism, because that world is entirely
subjective, but that does not matter. You know that you exist, and
therefore the Supreme Being must exist.
By the very same logic, a supremer being to craete that
supreme being must exist, and a more supremer being to
create that supremer being must exist, and so on forever.
Therefore there is obviously something wrong with that logic.
Not necessarily. The definition of a supreme being embodies the concept
that it exists without creation.
Alright then - Can I define the universe as including the concept that
it exists without creation, thereby getting rid of the need to invent
god to be the creator of it?
Yes.
If not, then why do YOU get to say
"Everything needs a cause except for the thing I'd like to stop
questiniing at" and I don't? The notion that a god must exist purely
because everything needs a cause is self-contraditory. If everything
needs a cause then there can be no first cause.
That's limited thinking merely because you can't get your head around
the idea of an existence without a cause.
What? What the hell gave you the idea that I can't get my
mind around it? What I said is that IF everything needs a
cause... IF that, then there can be no first cause. If you
believe that existence without a cause is possible, that's
fine, but it does rule out using the premise "everything
needs a cause" - which is a fundamental premise of the first
cause argument for god existing.
I'm just pointing out the internal inconsistency that renders
the argument a fallacy.
If not everything
needs a cause then you lost that reason for insisting there must be
a god.
I never insisted that. I was addressing the definition 'supreme being'.
Perhaps you didn't notice.
Then the definition of "supreme being" violates the premise
that everything needs a cause, and thus cannot be used inside
the same argument that uses that premise if you want to be
an honest person.
I don't see a problem with a 'first cause' being the 'cause' of all that
follows, and the first cause being without a cause.
In that case you lose the premise that was used to propose
that god must exist as a first cause. If you can define
a stopping point where you like and call it the one exception
to the rule by arbitrary fiat, then someone else can do the
same and call the universe itself that stopping point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pedro" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 07:14:15 PM |
|
|
Steve Mading wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:39:23 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:21:45 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:05:26 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:30:08 GMT, Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) <sob@sob.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity. At the very minimum, even if you adopt the Worldview of
Idealism, you know that you exist. You cannot prove it to anyone esle
within the Worldview of Idealism, because that world is entirely
subjective, but that does not matter. You know that you exist, and
therefore the Supreme Being must exist.
By the very same logic, a supremer being to craete that
supreme being must exist, and a more supremer being to
create that supremer being must exist, and so on forever.
Therefore there is obviously something wrong with that logic.
Not necessarily. The definition of a supreme being embodies the concept
that it exists without creation.
Alright then - Can I define the universe as including the concept that
it exists without creation, thereby getting rid of the need to invent
god to be the creator of it?
Yes.
If not, then why do YOU get to say
"Everything needs a cause except for the thing I'd like to stop
questiniing at" and I don't? The notion that a god must exist purely
because everything needs a cause is self-contraditory. If everything
needs a cause then there can be no first cause.
That's limited thinking merely because you can't get your head around
the idea of an existence without a cause.
What? What the hell gave you the idea that I can't get my
mind around it? What I said is that IF everything needs a
cause... IF that, then there can be no first cause. If you
believe that existence without a cause is possible, that's
fine, but it does rule out using the premise "everything
needs a cause" - which is a fundamental premise of the first
cause argument for god existing.
I'm just pointing out the internal inconsistency that renders
the argument a fallacy.
If not everything
needs a cause then you lost that reason for insisting there must be
a god.
I never insisted that. I was addressing the definition 'supreme being'.
Perhaps you didn't notice.
Then the definition of "supreme being" violates the premise
that everything needs a cause, and thus cannot be used inside
the same argument that uses that premise if you want to be
an honest person.
I don't see a problem with a 'first cause' being the 'cause' of all that
follows, and the first cause being without a cause.
In that case you lose the premise that was used to propose
that god must exist as a first cause.
I'm not saying that 'god must exist as a first cause'. Perhaps 'first'
cause was a wrong expression. I really mean simply 'the' cause. I can't
see anything wrong with suggesting that the universe has a creator being.
If you can define
a stopping point where you like and call it the one exception
to the rule by arbitrary fiat, then someone else can do the
same and call the universe itself that stopping point.
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Virus scan completed: All viruses functioning normally'
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 08:41:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:05:26 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
By the very same logic, a supremer being to craete that
supreme being must exist, and a more supremer being to
create that supremer being must exist, and so on forever.
Therefore there is obviously something wrong with that logic.
Not necessarily. The definition of a supreme being embodies the concept
that it exists without creation.
A sign of intelligent life has just surfaced.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 10:48:57 PM |
|
|
Steve Mading wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:30:08 GMT, Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) <sob@sob.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity. At the very minimum, even if you adopt the Worldview of
Idealism, you know that you exist. You cannot prove it to anyone esle
within the Worldview of Idealism, because that world is entirely
subjective, but that does not matter. You know that you exist, and
therefore the Supreme Being must exist.
By the very same logic, a supremer being to craete that
supreme being must exist, and a more supremer being to
create that supremer being must exist, and so on forever.
Therefore there is obviously something wrong with that logic.
Not really. They have a "special pleading" clause in which the "god"
they believe in is truly truly the end of the line, the Ultimo Supremo
God-Thingy. It's so much more logical that way. ;-)
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pedro" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 08:05:25 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
No it isn't. It's only evidence that it's origin may have been a creator
being.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity. At the very minimum, even if you adopt the Worldview of
Idealism, you know that you exist. You cannot prove it to anyone esle
within the Worldview of Idealism, because that world is entirely
subjective, but that does not matter. You know that you exist, and
therefore the Supreme Being must exist.
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Humility is a strange thing. As soon
as you think you have it, you've lost it!'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 08:09:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:05:25 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
No it isn't. It's only evidence that it's origin may have been a creator
being.
It isn't even that. There is no reason to postulate it, conjecture it
etc. Because there is nothing that points in that direction.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity. At the very minimum, even if you adopt the Worldview of
Idealism, you know that you exist. You cannot prove it to anyone esle
within the Worldview of Idealism, because that world is entirely
subjective, but that does not matter. You know that you exist, and
therefore the Supreme Being must exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 08:40:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:09:39 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
No it isn't. It's only evidence that it's origin may have been a creator
being.
It isn't even that. There is no reason to postulate it, conjecture it
etc. Because there is nothing that points in that direction.
The same tired mantra.
<yawn>
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 12:39:40 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential
Metaphysics,
I was talking about whichever god you think we were
supposed to believe in and fear. You're welcome to
define him any way you want to, just expect us to
point and laugh at your definitions when they're
absurd. If you define "god" as "that which creates
universes", why should humanity fear this god, any
more than we should fear the universe itself? It
isn't like a being on that scale would change it's
behaviour based on our fears, prayers or sacrifices.
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity.
Circular definitions tend to lead to absurdities, yes.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 11:35:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:39:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
So, you believe in the Little Folk? After all, my Irish ancestors
believed in and feared them for centuries.
Your Irish ancestors were perpetually drunk - that's why they saw
Little Folk.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 02:31:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:35:34 GMT, (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB))
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:39:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
So, you believe in the Little Folk? After all, my Irish ancestors
believed in and feared them for centuries.
Your Irish ancestors were perpetually drunk - that's why they saw
Little Folk.
This would explain many religious experience.
(Palestine, c. 30 CE)
Drunk Dude: "What a great party!"
Paaser-by: "Oh? What happened?"
DG: "We got ripped down at the beach, and this Jesus guy made fish!"
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Bush City Limits" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 02:15:46 AM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:4250b3b5.5377882@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
blah blah blah ***** ***** *****.....just usual flame baiting crap
we get 100 times a day.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 09:11:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:15:46 +1000, "Clayton Bush City Limits"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
blah blah blah ***** ***** *****.....just usual flame baiting crap
we get 100 times a day.
<plonk>
How juvenile.
Good riddance.
Just make sure you stay plonked.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 10:43:38 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:15:46 +1000, "Clayton Bush City Limits"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
blah blah blah ***** ***** *****.....just usual flame baiting crap
we get 100 times a day.
<plonk>
How juvenile.
Good riddance.
Just make sure you stay plonked.
He plonked you, not himself. Idiot.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 12:24:12 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:15:46 +1000, "Clayton Bush City Limits"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
blah blah blah ***** ***** *****.....just usual flame baiting crap
we get 100 times a day.
<plonk>
How juvenile.
Good riddance.
Just make sure you stay plonked.
So, you come to an atheist newsgroup and, when you don't like what
atheists say, you killfile them? How mature of you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Bush City Limits" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 06:45:24 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:k9KdnZ2goYSw5czfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:15:46 +1000, "Clayton Bush City Limits"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
blah blah blah ***** ***** *****.....just usual flame baiting
crap
we get 100 times a day.
<plonk>
How juvenile.
Good riddance.
Just make sure you stay plonked.
Wait....I toss the ignorant wanker into the bozo bin without a second
thought and walk away...but even though I wouldn't see his message, he
starts yelling, "I kicked you out...and don't come back here begging me for
forgiveness"???
Python's Black Knight Syndrome!! A mind is a terrible thing to waste on
religion!
So, you come to an atheist newsgroup and, when you don't like what
atheists say, you killfile them? How mature of you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gerry lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 06:03:18 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in message news:<4250b3b5.5377882@news-server.houston.rr.com>...
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
Just a few slight oversimplifications in this Bob. Anti which
religion are we talking about, the one that tells us that women have
to be covered from head to foot when outside, the one that tells us
God wants us to wear a silly skull cap, the one that use to have us
eating fish on Fridays. You get the gist. Its not God I object to is
all the people who want to stand between me and him for their own
agrandisement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
03 Apr 2005 10:41:21 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in news:4250b3b5.5377882@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
Wow. LOL. This is a great parody of a xian religious nut.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "yõwïe" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 02:13:20 AM |
|
|
In <Xns962DF13619DC2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121>
Woden posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
sob@sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in news:4250b3b5.5377882@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
Wow. LOL. This is a great parody of a xian religious nut.
Help is at hand!
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=2085:1931
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 09:10:10 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:41:21 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
Wow. LOL. This is a great parody of a xian religious nut.
It works both ways.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hades" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 08:21:20 PM |
|
|
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
The Bible says "O fear the LORD, you His saints; For to those who fear
Him, there is no want. " Psalm 34:9
Proverbs 22:4. Humility and the fear of the LORD bring honor, wealth,
and life.
Exodus 20:20 Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come
to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from
sinning."
Etc etc. etc
So yeah, you're saying all christians are sexually and emotionally
retarded. How fucking true.
Well, "anti-religious bigots" don't invade *****-poor begging-bowl
nations, they don't ram planes into buildings, they don't burn abortion
clinics, they don't conduct "witchhunts", nor do they tell someone
where to put his *****. Most importantly, "anti-religious bigots" don't
cut their dicks off for jerking off.
Hades, the Evil Atheist
www.evilatheist.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "yõwïe" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 12:25:14 AM |
|
|
In <1112664080.789499.20010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Hades posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Where?
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 08:38:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:55:14 +0930, yõwïe <hweh-says@aifind.info>
wrote:
In <1112664080.789499.20010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Hades posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Where?
In Freud's book entitled "Why Atheists Are Sexually Repressed".
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "yõwïe" |
|
| Title: Re: Troll dies in the arse |
05 Apr 2005 04:50:00 PM |
|
|
In <4252949a.1544230@news-server.houston.rr.com>
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:55:14 +0930, yõwïe <hweh-says@aifind.info>
wrote:
In <1112664080.789499.20010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Hades posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Where?
In Freud's book entitled "Why Atheists Are Sexually Repressed".
<yawn>
It's over.
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Troll dies in the arse |
08 Apr 2005 05:02:50 PM |
|
|
Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,talk.atheism,alt.religion
Subject: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics
Date: Friday April 8, 2005, 5:00 pm CT
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ôwæ" |
|
| Title: Re: Troll dies in the arse |
08 Apr 2005 07:43:54 PM |
|
|
In <4256ff8c.33976115@news-server.houston.rr.com>
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
An atheist visited the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
No one replied.
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Troll dies in the arse |
08 Apr 2005 09:41:30 PM |
|
|
"¥ôwæ" <mitiros@toriii.cc> wrote in message
news:SNOTME1cc1c94929f3f9759897a4@toriii.cc...
In <4256ff8c.33976115@news-server.houston.rr.com>
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
An atheist visited the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
No one replied.
An atheist wouldn't ask such a question, dimbeam.
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ôwæ" |
|
| Title: Re: Troll dies in the arse |
09 Apr 2005 12:51:40 AM |
|
|
In <urednW3GX4xO3crfRVn-sw@comcast.com>
Michelle Malkin posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
"¥ôwæ" <mitiros@toriii.cc> wrote in message
news:SNOTME1cc1c94929f3f9759897a4@toriii.cc...
In <4256ff8c.33976115@news-server.houston.rr.com>
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
An atheist visited the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
No one replied.
An atheist wouldn't ask such a question, dimbeam.
Except to annoy someone.
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Troll dies in the arse |
09 Apr 2005 01:23:01 AM |
|
|
"¥ôwæ" <mitiros@toriii.cc> wrote in message
news:SNOTME1cc2116ac55dcf619897a5@toriii.cc...
In <urednW3GX4xO3crfRVn-sw@comcast.com>
Michelle Malkin posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
"¥ôwæ" <mitiros@toriii.cc> wrote in message
news:SNOTME1cc1c94929f3f9759897a4@toriii.cc...
In <4256ff8c.33976115@news-server.houston.rr.com>
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
An atheist visited the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
No one replied.
An atheist wouldn't ask such a question, dimbeam.
Except to annoy someone.
Are you admitting to being a troll?
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ôwæ" |
|
| Title: Re: Troll dies in the arse |
09 Apr 2005 04:09:29 PM |
|
|
In <V_qdnSB5I6wj6crfRVn-sw@comcast.com>
Michelle Malkin posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
"¥ôwæ" <mitiros@toriii.cc> wrote in message
news:SNOTME1cc2116ac55dcf619897a5@toriii.cc...
In <urednW3GX4xO3crfRVn-sw@comcast.com>
Michelle Malkin posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
"¥ôwæ" <mitiros@toriii.cc> wrote in message
news:SNOTME1cc1c94929f3f9759897a4@toriii.cc...
In <4256ff8c.33976115@news-server.houston.rr.com>
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
An atheist visited the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
No one replied.
An atheist wouldn't ask such a question, dimbeam.
Except to annoy someone.
Are you admitting to being a troll?
Nope. Only to feeding one.
--
'There is less of this than meets the eye.'
-Tallulah Bankhead
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
