| 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: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 12:29:07 PM |
|
|
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know how to spell.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 02:24:23 PM |
|
|
In article <58ch9lF2gclfgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know how to spell.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
What! And you're a fucking moron who knows how to spell?
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 03:14:32 PM |
|
|
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:HT9Uh.2153$j%5.385@edtnps90...
In article <58ch9lF2gclfgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know how to spell.
What! And you're a fucking moron who knows how to spell?
You're funny.
And stupid. Say "hi" to the other inbred cocksuckers in my killfile.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 04:29:35 PM |
|
|
In article <58cqvqF2ejmvgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:HT9Uh.2153$j%5.385@edtnps90...
In article <58ch9lF2gclfgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know how to spell.
What! And you're a fucking moron who knows how to spell?
You're funny.
And stupid. Say "hi" to the other inbred cocksuckers in my killfile.
Thanks for the report.
My weak words have struck and how sweet the sound of a direct bullseye.
The tip of the arrow that made it's mark was dipped in the concepts of my words
and in about a year or so, he will claim to have discovered them himself.
aAHaHahahaha
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:06:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:29:35 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <58cqvqF2ejmvgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:HT9Uh.2153$j%5.385@edtnps90...
In article <58ch9lF2gclfgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know how to spell.
What! And you're a fucking moron who knows how to spell?
You're funny.
And stupid. Say "hi" to the other inbred cocksuckers in my killfile.
Thanks for the report.
My weak words have struck and how sweet the sound of a direct bullseye.
The tip of the arrow that made it's mark was dipped in the concepts of my words
and in about a year or so, he will claim to have discovered them himself.
He's a she and since she killfiled you she never saw your brilliant
retort.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
15 Apr 2007 04:37:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:29:35 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <58cqvqF2ejmvgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:HT9Uh.2153$j%5.385@edtnps90...
In article <58ch9lF2gclfgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know how to spell.
What! And you're a fucking moron who knows how to spell?
You're funny.
And stupid. Say "hi" to the other inbred cocksuckers in my killfile.
Thanks for the report.
My weak words have struck and how sweet the sound of a direct bullseye.
The tip of the arrow that made it's mark was dipped in the concepts of my words
and in about a year or so, he will claim to have discovered them himself.
Oh, hardly. Granted, you may have made *some* impression, but I'll
wager it's not the one you were hoping for.
aAHaHahahaha
The laughter of a fool is a hollow sound.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 09:00:43 PM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in
news:3JbUh.1735$VF5.415@edtnps82:
In article <58cqvqF2ejmvgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:HT9Uh.2153$j%5.385@edtnps90...
In article <58ch9lF2gclfgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know how to spell.
What! And you're a fucking moron who knows how to spell?
You're funny.
And stupid. Say "hi" to the other inbred cocksuckers in my killfile.
Thanks for the report.
My weak words have struck and how sweet the sound of a direct
bullseye. The tip of the arrow that made it's mark was dipped in the
concepts of my words and in about a year or so, he will claim to have
discovered them himself.
aAHaHahahaha
The lurkers support you in email, huh?
Wanker.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS. Why?
--They consider themselves shepherds.
--They consider the rest of us sheep.
--Shepherds ***** sheep.
--Therefore AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 12:33:02 PM |
|
|
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
Aside from the words redherring, kneejerk, virtual, and external, you're
right on the money!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 04:41:09 PM |
|
|
In article <09-dnV3m6f6gjbzbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90...
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of
worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
Aside from the words redherring, kneejerk, virtual, and external, you're
right on the money!
Thanks. Same to you.
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
15 Apr 2007 07:27:42 AM |
|
|
In article <N_6Uh.1686$j%5.82@edtnps90>,
dangdangdoodle <notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping
an external "virtual" god.
You're right. I don't agree with it. It is neither a red herring, nor is
it a thoughtless "kneejerk" reaction. It's all about dealing with the
obvious lack of god-like events happening in the universe around us.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 11:36:07 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 11:07 am, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
Neato! And here was me thinking "athiesm" was a made up word. You
learn something new every day.
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.
Maybe if you ask *real* nice, the wizard will give your strawman some
brains.
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.
Would you mind rephrasing that in the form of a coherent thought?
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 11:52:48 AM |
|
|
In article <1176568567.454596.8580@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:07 am, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
wrote:
Athiesm is a redherring kneejerk reaction to the ridiculousness of worshiping an
external "virtual" god.
Neato! And here was me thinking "athiesm" was a made up word. You
learn something new every day.
The term "a term for" is generally understood in common English. "English" IS A
TERM we use to identify the language we speak. "We" is a term...
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.
Maybe if you ask *real* nice, the wizard will give your strawman some
brains.
Really got to ya, huh.
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.
Would you mind rephrasing that in the form of a coherent thought?
YOU don't understand, so it's MY fault. AH!
--
the dang
Bush; If HE can't put a square peg into a round hole,
it's because YOU ain't pounding long and hard enough.
Now, he's looking for a bigger square peg in Iran.
___________
How come it's never the athiests lining up for koolaid?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L.Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 08:05:22 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 12:07 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
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.
--
the dang
My "atheism" consists of my saying "no" whenever someone asks me if I
believe there is a god. Now, if you want to make something of that,
fine; I will simply know you to be some species of stupid, ignorant,
assinine, bastardly, foolish fucking moronic imbecilic dumbshit and
tune you right to ***** out.
L.Roberts
a.a. # 2258
Atheist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 08:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 12:07 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
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.
--
the dang
Show us the real god and we'll all start believing.
And the reason you are getting so much hate is because you don't know
what an atheist is.
Imagine if I walked in to church and said "so, you guys like to rape
children?".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 08:17:52 PM |
|
|
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> said:
On Apr 14, 12:07 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
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.
--
the dang
Show us the real god and we'll all start believing.
And the reason you are getting so much hate is because you don't know
what an atheist is.
Imagine if I walked in to church and said "so, you guys like to rape
children?".
He's the Don Imus of anti-atheism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:58:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1176599477.127744.46750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:07 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
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.
--
the dang
Show us the real god and we'll all start believing.
And the reason you are getting so much hate is because you don't know
what an atheist is.
Imagine if I walked in to church and said "so, you guys like to rape
children?".
Good point. IAnd it's likely that if there actually were rapists in church,
they'd be the ones that would get all defensive to show their innocence. They'd
probably be the ones swearing invectives and leaving in a huff.
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
15 Apr 2007 12:11:34 AM |
|
|
dangdangdoodle wrote:
In article <1176599477.127744.46750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote:
Show us the real god and we'll all start believing.
And the reason you are getting so much hate is because you don't know
what an atheist is.
Imagine if I walked in to church and said "so, you guys like to rape
children?".
Good point. IAnd it's likely that if there actually were rapists in church,
they'd be the ones that would get all defensive to show their innocence. They'd
probably be the ones swearing invectives and leaving in a huff.
So you imagine that the innocent church goers would just
smile at the completely erroneous slur and politely welcome
the ***** who accused all of them without any reason?
What color is the sky over the planet where you are from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
18 Apr 2007 02:38:06 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
dangdangdoodle wrote:
In article <1176599477.127744.46750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote:
Show us the real god and we'll all start believing.
And the reason you are getting so much hate is because you don't
know what an atheist is.
Imagine if I walked in to church and said "so, you guys like to rape
children?".
Good point. IAnd it's likely that if there actually were rapists in
church, they'd be the ones that would get all defensive to show
their innocence. They'd probably be the ones swearing invectives and
leaving in a huff.
So you imagine that the innocent church goers would just
smile at the completely erroneous slur and politely welcome
the ***** who accused all of them without any reason?
What color is the sky over the planet where you are from?
Fire and Brimstone ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:36:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1176599477.127744.46750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:07 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
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.
--
the dang
Show us the real god and we'll all start believing.
And the reason you are getting so much hate is because you don't know
what an atheist is.
Imagine if I walked in to church and said "so, you guys like to rape
children?".
Ok. Kate made me aware that I perhaps over generalized and not all atheists would fall into the polarized category.
I wonder however, what you mean by your statement "Show us the real God.....???
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
15 Apr 2007 01:16:26 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 11:36 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
wrote:
In article <1176599477.127744.46...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:07 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com>
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.
--
the dang
Show us the real god and we'll all start believing.
And the reason you are getting so much hate is because you don't know
what an atheist is.
Imagine if I walked in to church and said "so, you guys like to rape
children?".
Ok. Kate made me aware that I perhaps over generalized and not all atheists would fall into the polarized category.
I wonder however, what you mean by your statement "Show us the real God.....???
--
the dang
We are not people who go around saying there is no god, but people who
go around without maintaining a belief in a god, and in particular
what you notice are the false idols of religion. And we do this
because we are generally skeptics and only hold beliefs that are
backed up by evidence. We have no "new god" belief. We just have
reason. Nothing is held upon dogmatically, not even the lack of belief
in a god.
And I agree with you that if there were no theists, then there would
be no atheists (in the sense of language).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 08:03:57 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 5:07 pm, dangdangdoodle <notea_tha...@islandnet.com> 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.
--
the dang
Wrong.
If there were no theists. everybody would be an atheist. The word for
it would eventually fall into disuse but, as Shakespeare said "A rose,
by any other name, would smell as sweet".
Words are not the substance of reality, they are, at best, an accurate
reflection of it, and, at worst, a denial. The ultimate denial of
reality is the word "God".
"God" is a dustbin into which those who cannot handle reality toss
their forlorn wishes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 12:04:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> 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.
Atheists simply lack to belief to be athiests. You don't have to
believe in no god.
Back to square one. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 02:35:25 PM |
|
|
In article <46590919.909165484@news-west.newscene.com>,
(Kate ) wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> 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.
Atheists simply lack to belief to be athiests. You don't have to
believe in no god.
Back to square one. Try again.
I suppose you could get away with that according to the first definition,
however most or at least many atheist would fall into the second and the other
definitions, don't you think?
Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other
deities.[1][2] This may be coupled with the conscious rejection of theistic
beliefs,[3] as well as the belief in the nonexistence of God.[4][5][6] It
contrasts with theism, the belief in one or more gods.
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:27:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:35:25 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <46590919.909165484@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> 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.
Atheists simply lack to belief to be athiests. You don't have to
believe in no god.
Back to square one. Try again.
I suppose you could get away with that according to the first definition,
however most or at least many atheist would fall into the second and the other
definitions, don't you think?
That is the actual definition of atheism, reguardless of what the
popular definition or your particular dictionary says.
A-theism which literally means in latin - lacking belief in a
god/gods.
I think there is probably 2 weak atheists to 1 strong one but it's
hardly a clear dividing point. The complete and absolute lack of any
evidence of gods is rather strong evidence of no gods. Most atheists
don't worry about it too much. The emphasis is lack of theism.
Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other
deities.[1][2] This may be coupled with the conscious rejection of theistic
beliefs,[3] as well as the belief in the nonexistence of God.[4][5][6] It
contrasts with theism, the belief in one or more gods.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:05:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:35:25 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <46590919.909165484@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
Atheists simply lack to belief to be athiests. You don't have to
believe in no god.
Back to square one. Try again.
I suppose you could get away with that according to the first definition,
however most or at least many atheist would fall into the second and the other
definitions, don't you think?
I think that while many Christians like chocolate ice cream, liking
chocolate ice cream has nothing to do with Christianity.
Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other
deities.[1][2] This may be coupled with the conscious rejection of theistic
beliefs
Or it may not.
as well as the belief in the nonexistence of God.
Or it may not. It may also be coupled with being a liberal, or a
scientist. Or it may not.
It contrasts with theism
No, it's merely LACK OF theism. That's what the "a" prefix means -
"lacking".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 03:01:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> 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.
You may not agree with *this* opinion, but you're a pretentious
***** with the IQ of a house plant.
And you don't have a clue what atheism actually is.
Innerspace. The only frontier.
The kingdom lies within.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodle" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 04:38:55 PM |
|
|
In article <slc223d9t485vooohpqa2udevudosu89a4@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> 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.
You may not agree with *this* opinion, but you're a pretentious
***** with the IQ of a house plant.
And you don't have a clue what atheism actually is.
What else did your house plant say?
--
the dang
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
15 Apr 2007 04:56:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:38:55 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <slc223d9t485vooohpqa2udevudosu89a4@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> 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.
You may not agree with *this* opinion, but you're a pretentious
***** with the IQ of a house plant.
And you don't have a clue what atheism actually is.
What else did your house plant say?
It says it finds you rather dull and stupid.
I agree.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 10:31:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:38:55 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> wrote:
In article <slc223d9t485vooohpqa2udevudosu89a4@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:07:09 GMT, dangdangdoodle
<notea_thanks@islandnet.com> 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.
You may not agree with *this* opinion, but you're a pretentious
***** with the IQ of a house plant.
And you don't have a clue what atheism actually is.
What else did your house plant say?
You forgot your post so soon?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: You May Not Agree With This Opinion But |
14 Apr 2007 11:11:46 AM |
|
|
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...?
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"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
