| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dangdangdoodle" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2007 11:07:09 AM |
| Object: |
You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
--
the dang
.
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 11:40:31 AM |
|
|
In article <l8v123p04322prcql6sbpgpg87havs9hj3@4ax.com>,
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
"I'll have the Open Ears Light, thanks. Ah, and would you bring a litre of Right
Understanding as well."
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 09:36:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:40:31 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <l8v123p04322prcql6sbpgpg87havs9hj3@4ax.com>,
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
"I'll have the Open Ears Light, thanks. Ah, and would you bring a litre of Right
Understanding as well."
Creamy Nonsense would go better with that salad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
16 Apr 2007 06:31:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:40:31 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <l8v123p04322prcql6sbpgpg87havs9hj3@4ax.com>,
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
"I'll have the Open Ears Light, thanks. Ah, and would you bring a litre of Right
Understanding as well."
I was thinking more of "Don't take the Brown Acid", and "You've had
enough, can I call you a cab?"...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
16 Apr 2007 10:00:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:31:28 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:40:31 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <l8v123p04322prcql6sbpgpg87havs9hj3@4ax.com>,
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
"I'll have the Open Ears Light, thanks. Ah, and would you bring a litre of Right
Understanding as well."
I was thinking more of "Don't take the Brown Acid", and "You've had
enough, can I call you a cab?"...
You *could* call him a cab, but most motor vehicles are a lot more
intelligent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 07:01:44 PM |
|
|
In article <l8v123p04322prcql6sbpgpg87havs9hj3@4ax.com>,=20
raven1 said...
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
You've got the wrong meal in mind. Dangdangdoole is serving=20
up breakfast: a steaming pile of cr=EApe.
--=20
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 07:48:08 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 8:01 pm, Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <l8v123p04322prcql6sbpgpg87havs9...@4ax.com>,
raven1 said...
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
You've got the wrong meal in mind. Dangdangdoole is serving
up breakfast: a steaming pile of cr=EApe.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Damn that's funny!
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:46:41 PM |
|
|
In article <1176598088.311994.129400@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:01 pm, Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <l8v123p04322prcql6sbpgpg87havs9...@4ax.com>,
raven1 said...
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
You've got the wrong meal in mind. Dangdangdoole is serving
up breakfast: a steaming pile of crpe.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Damn that's funny!
Now now...settle down.
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
15 Apr 2007 03:14:25 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 12:11 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_tha...@islandnet.com> wrote:
What dressing will monsieur be having with his Word Salad...?
You actially managed to translate that into english..?
I'm impressed.
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 01:52:40 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> said:
Athiesm is a ...
Off to a bad start.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 04:35:37 PM |
|
|
In article <pq82239q9eik4m5dqdf6n6rmn2qfrb1kt2@4ax.com>,
Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> said:
Athiesm is a ...
Off to a bad start.
And finished with your bad ending.
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 05:31:31 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> said:
In article <pq82239q9eik4m5dqdf6n6rmn2qfrb1kt2@4ax.com>,
Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> said:
Athiesm is a ...
Off to a bad start.
And finished with your bad ending.
I notice that "You may not agree with this opinion but" was not
intended charitably, judging by your replies to people who didn't
agree with this opinion. Bye.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 12:31:57 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness
of worshiping an external "virtual" god. The neocons and other
parasites are like evil changlings who change their form to fit
other's "projection" of that virtual god, and thereby the sheep
are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be
learning from.
I think I should add "external virtual" to my list of oxymorons.
However if "virtual" has any meaning(s) that make the above make sense
please provide them.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their
followers no better than fools, in no way validates holding up
the belief of "no god" as the right new god.
Are you suggesting that there are some kind of god(s) that is/are not
non-existant? Which one(s)?
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external
god, there would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within
yourself in order to advance.
No, for athEIsm to be a meaningless concept we would also have to get
rid of whatever god(s) you are suggesting. (Whaterver they are.)
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
Sigh.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 02:22:46 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9912CF761D26Alisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>,
Lisbeth Andersson <lisand@bredband.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness
of worshiping an external "virtual" god. The neocons and other
parasites are like evil changlings who change their form to fit
other's "projection" of that virtual god, and thereby the sheep
are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be
learning from.
I think I should add "external virtual" to my list of oxymorons.
However if "virtual" has any meaning(s) that make the above make sense
please provide them.
Dictionary: virtual (vûr'chū-Ɂl)adj.
1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form,
or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.
2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in
literary criticism of a text.
Your shoe is external. Is it virtual?
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their
followers no better than fools, in no way validates holding up
the belief of "no god" as the right new god.
Are you suggesting that there are some kind of god(s) that is/are not
non-existant? Which one(s)?
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external
god, there would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within
yourself in order to advance.
No, for athEIsm to be a meaningless concept we would also have to get
rid of whatever god(s) you are suggesting. (Whaterver they are.)
True. But get rid of them from where? our own consciousness which we have the
power to do? or from societies consciousness, which we probably don't have much
control over? I suggest atheism is a meaningless concept outside of the presense
of it's opposite, theism. It's a polarity thing that being trapped into, may
prevent personal growth just as it's opposite will.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
Sigh.
yes, unfortunately for some.
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:30:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:22:46 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
Dictionary: virtual (vûr'chū-?l)adj.
1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form,
or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.
Good choice of dictionary since, while the bison were virtually
eliminated, no subspecies of buffalo was ever in much danger.
No, for athEIsm to be a meaningless concept we would also have to get
rid of whatever god(s) you are suggesting. (Whaterver they are.)
True. But get rid of them from where?
From wherever they exist, would probably be the best place. Getting
rid of them from someplace they don't exist would be a lot more
difficult.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 06:59:56 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in
news:aS9Uh.2147$j%5.57@edtnps90:
In article <Xns9912CF761D26Alisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>,
Lisbeth Andersson <lisand@bredband.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the
ridiculousness of worshiping an external "virtual" god. The
neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings who
change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual
god, and thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of
nefarious purposes such as securing their own shackles and
condemning those they should be learning from.
I think I should add "external virtual" to my list of oxymorons.
However if "virtual" has any meaning(s) that make the above make
sense please provide them.
Dictionary: virtual (vûr'chū-Ɂl)adj.
1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in
actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the
buffalo. 2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the
imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.
Your shoe is external. Is it virtual?
<....>
No. And if you can find an example that is both virtual and external
I'll think some more of the text I sniped, otherwise I'll update my
files.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 08:10:53 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82
@edtnps90:
<snip 50 pounds of crap in a 10-pound bag>
You're wrong. Bye.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS. Why?
--They consider themselves shepherds.
--They consider the rest of us sheep.
--Shepherds ***** sheep.
--Therefore AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But I'm still gonna post inane idiocy ... |
14 Apr 2007 11:19:51 AM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites
are like evil changlings who change their form to fit other's
"projection" of that virtual god, and thereby the sheep are
manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as securing
their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their
followers no better than fools, in no way validates holding up the
belief of "no god" as the right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external
god, there would be no athiests.
Wrong numbnuts. Then EVERYONE would be A-theist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But I'm still gonna post inane idiocy ... |
14 Apr 2007 11:27:45 AM |
|
|
On 14 apr, 18:19, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites
are like evil changlings who change their form to fit other's
"projection" of that virtual god, and thereby the sheep are
manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as securing
their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their
followers no better than fools, in no way validates holding up the
belief of "no god" as the right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external
god, there would be no athiests.
Wrong numbnuts. Then EVERYONE would be A-theist.
Yes but the word would be superfluous
and we would have to move on to another NG:)
(or leave usenet altogether)
He can rest assured than would take a long time:)
Peter van Velzen
April 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But I'm still gonna post inane idiocy ... |
14 Apr 2007 11:57:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1176568065.125265.297300@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
On 14 apr, 18:19, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites
are like evil changlings who change their form to fit other's
"projection" of that virtual god, and thereby the sheep are
manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as securing
their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their
followers no better than fools, in no way validates holding up the
belief of "no god" as the right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external
god, there would be no athiests.
Wrong numbnuts. Then EVERYONE would be A-theist.
Yes but the word would be superfluous
and we would have to move on to another NG:)
(or leave usenet altogether)
He can rest assured than would take a long time:)
For sure. You'd have to understand to say that.
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 11:35:51 AM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
You're right, I don't agree with it. I also don't believe you and it
makes no sense.
Care to have another go at it?
Good. You can start by defining what the letters G-O-D mean.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 02:42:12 PM |
|
|
In article <sgc7f4-m862.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
You're right, I don't agree with it. I also don't believe you and it
makes no sense.
You admittedly disagree with what you admit you don't understand?
Good. You can start by defining what the letters G-O-D mean.
Letters? Sure.
http://www.digg.com/design/Visual_Representation_Of_How_The_Alphabet_Evolved
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 03:44:16 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle wrote:
In article <sgc7f4-m862.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
You're right, I don't agree with it. I also don't believe you and it
makes no sense.
You admittedly disagree with what you admit you don't understand?
Read it again, and this time, do try to comprehend what was written.
Good. You can start by defining what the letters G-O-D mean.
Letters? Sure.
http://www.digg.com/design/Visual_Representation_Of_How_The_Alphabet_Evolved
Nice, no answer.
Thanks for playing anyway.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 04:54:57 PM |
|
|
In article <32r7f4-4r72.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
In article <sgc7f4-m862.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
You're right, I don't agree with it. I also don't believe you and it
makes no sense.
You admittedly disagree with what you admit you don't understand?
Read it again, and this time, do try to comprehend what was written.
You said that you don't agree with my opinion, re: the subject
You said you don't believe me.
And you say it makes no sense (to you.)
If something makes no sense to you, how can you make a rational judgement about content?
Clue me in.
Good. You can start by defining what the letters.
Letters? Sure.
http://www.digg.com/design/Visual_Representation_Of_How_The_Alphabet_Evolved
Nice, no answer.
Thanks for playing anyway.
Don't give up, cause I give up first on your question.
Exactly what do the letters G-O-D mean to you Rev?
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 05:39:16 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle wrote:
In article <32r7f4-4r72.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
In article <sgc7f4-m862.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god. The neocons and other parasites are like evil changlings
who change their form to fit other's "projection" of that virtual god, and
thereby the sheep are manipulated for all sorts of nefarious purposes such as
securing their own shackles and condemning those they should be learning from.
However, the fact that virtual gods are non-existant and their followers no
better than fools, in no way validates holding up the belief of "no god" as the
right new god.
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god, there
would be no athiests. Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to
advance.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
You're right, I don't agree with it. I also don't believe you and it
makes no sense.
You admittedly disagree with what you admit you don't understand?
Read it again, and this time, do try to comprehend what was written.
You said that you don't agree with my opinion, re: the subject
Nope. This:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
You said you don't believe me.
Yup, this:
Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to advance.
And you say it makes no sense (to you.)
Yup. Word salad. You have a real problem putting complex thought down
in coherent phrases.
If something makes no sense to you, how can you make a rational judgement about content?
Clue me in.
Simple, as shown above, by dissecting the pieces that show any sense at all.
Good. You can start by defining what the letters.
Letters? Sure.
http://www.digg.com/design/Visual_Representation_Of_How_The_Alphabet_Evolved
Nice, no answer.
Thanks for playing anyway.
Don't give up, cause I give up first on your question.
Exactly what do the letters G-O-D mean to you Rev?
Nothing, why?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 09:50:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:39:16 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
You said that you don't agree with my opinion, re: the subject
Nope. This:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
You said you don't believe me.
Yup, this:
Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to advance.
And you say it makes no sense (to you.)
Yup. Word salad. You have a real problem putting complex thought down
in coherent phrases.
How complex is "Atheism is not believing in any gods"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:51:29 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:39:16 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
You said that you don't agree with my opinion, re: the subject
Nope. This:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
You said you don't believe me.
Yup, this:
Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to advance.
And you say it makes no sense (to you.)
Yup. Word salad. You have a real problem putting complex thought down
in coherent phrases.
How complex is "Atheism is not believing in any gods"?
Apparently, pretty complex for some people.
Of course if dang under stood that atheism is really "without theism"
and and atheist is "not theist" then this thread never would have started.
Still, simple answer elude some people.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
15 Apr 2007 03:21:06 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 10:50 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:39:16 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylo...@getnet.net> wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
You said that you don't agree with my opinion, re: the subject
Nope. This:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
You said you don't believe me.
Yup, this:
Neutralize this polarity within yourself in order to advance.
And you say it makes no sense (to you.)
Yup. Word salad. You have a real problem putting complex thought down
in coherent phrases.
How complex is "Atheism is not believing in any gods"?
More complex apperently then D. can handle..
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 11:29:43 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle:
In other words, if they're were no blind followers of an external god,
there would be no athiests.
Umm, no. Without braindead morontheists there surely wouldn't be (that many)
_aggressive_ atheists - I see that "brand" of atheism as mainly a
counterforce spawned by morontheism (some evidence: In my German homeland
morontheism is pretty unknown, and guess what? Atheists don't commonly
"attack" religion here, in any way. Both sides agree on "live and let
live").
But whether there are people around you who claim that there's one evil
sadistic monster gawd or not - if you're an educated person you'll have
fair chances to wonder about objective evidence for the existence of
deities.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
