WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

Religions > Bible > WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 23 of 36

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Bill M"
Date:	09 Sep 2006 03:10:39 PM
Object:	WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
WHICH IF ANY ARE CORRECT???
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the TRUE one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	21 Oct 2006 07:34:04 PM

On 21 Oct 2006 16:59:11 -0700, "Chellie" <TNotch1@aol.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1161475151.119130.324180@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 20 Oct 2006 22:01:42 -0700, "Chellie" <TNotch1@aol.com> wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

On 17 Oct 2006 22:17:52 -0700, "Chellie" <TNotch1@aol.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1161148672.831739.213400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
:

My faith is in God,

Which does not exist.
(Except as a concept in infantile minds)

neither science nor religion.

Which do exist.

Striving to perfection and holiness in Jesus Christ,

Who probably never existed.

Chellie

Not a very good score on the realism meter.

********************************************************************************************************

If you say so. I know God exists.

Then prove it.

And when you realise you can't, stop rubbing your stupidity in our
faces.

Just because you don't doesn't mean I
am being unrealistic.

Do you loonies really imagine this is a satisfactory answer, after
rubbing your stupidity in people's faces?

There are those who believe in aliens, Bigfoot
and Loch Ness monster but never saw proof..

Then they're just as loony as you are.

Striving to perfection and holiness in Jesus Christ,

In his mouth or his *****?

********************************************************************************************************

Do you honestly want proof or are you trying to see what evidence I may
respond with? To be honest, the proof I have is faith. Meaning you must
be of God to believe. Sorry I don't have some object that says "This is
God!" except the Bible. God works by faith/belief, simple as that. I
don't rub "stupidity" in no one's face. I post my opinions just like
everyone else, just like you did and I am responding to it. See,
Christians can't show Bible to non-believers. Why? Because they are
non-believers. God isn't science. If I want to prove that Venus
flytraps are real, I would go to Home Depot (or whatever), buy one and
then show it. I can't buy an object like that of God except the Bible.

Then you admit that your god is a delusion.
Thank you for that.
.

User: "Chellie"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	21 Oct 2006 07:56:26 PM

Michael Gray wrote:

Chellie wrote:
Do you honestly want proof or are you trying to see what evidence I may
respond with? To be honest, the proof I have is faith. Meaning you must
be of God to believe. Sorry I don't have some object that says "This is
God!" except the Bible. God works by faith/belief, simple as that. I
don't rub "stupidity" in no one's face. I post my opinions just like
everyone else, just like you did and I am responding to it. See,
Christians can't show Bible to non-believers. Why? Because they are
non-believers. God isn't science. If I want to prove that Venus
flytraps are real, I would go to Home Depot (or whatever), buy one and
then show it. I can't buy an object like that of God except the Bible.

Michael wrote:

Then you admit that your god is a delusion.
Thank you for that.

**********************************************************************************************************
No I didn't. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted but in that
day, you will know without a shadow of a doubt that God is real. This
the reason why I don't get upset or try to bash people's heads in (not
literally) about God being real. I just know one day there will be not
one hypocrite. All will know.
Striving to perfection and holiness in Jesus Christ,
Chellie
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 01:15:49 PM

"Chellie" <TNotch1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161478586.728153.122870@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Michael Gray wrote:

Chellie wrote:

Do you honestly want proof or are you trying to see what evidence I may
respond with? To be honest, the proof I have is faith. Meaning you must
be of God to believe. Sorry I don't have some object that says "This is
God!" except the Bible. God works by faith/belief, simple as that. I
don't rub "stupidity" in no one's face. I post my opinions just like
everyone else, just like you did and I am responding to it. See,
Christians can't show Bible to non-believers. Why? Because they are
non-believers. God isn't science. If I want to prove that Venus
flytraps are real, I would go to Home Depot (or whatever), buy one and
then show it. I can't buy an object like that of God except the Bible.

Michael wrote:

Then you admit that your god is a delusion.
Thank you for that.

Prove it.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	24 Oct 2006 08:32:56 PM

On 21 Oct 2006 17:56:26 -0700, "Chellie" <TNotch1@aol.com> wrote in
alt.atheism

Michael Gray wrote:

Chellie wrote:

Michael wrote:

Then you admit that your god is a delusion.
Thank you for that.

Just like the Tooth Faerie. Run along little one and don't bother the
adults.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	21 Oct 2006 10:55:00 PM

On 21 Oct 2006 17:56:26 -0700, "Chellie" <TNotch1@aol.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1161478586.728153.122870@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>

Michael Gray wrote:

Chellie wrote:

Michael wrote:

Then you admit that your god is a delusion.
Thank you for that.

**********************************************************************************************************

No I didn't. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted but in that
day, you will know without a shadow of a doubt that God is real. This
the reason why I don't get upset or try to bash people's heads in (not
literally) about God being real. I just know one day there will be not
one hypocrite. All will know.

Striving to perfection and holiness in Jesus Christ,
Chellie

Do you realise how juvenile and astoundingly moronic that sounds to a
non-infected person?
It beggars belief that an adult could possibly think in such an
infantile manner.
God exists only your fevered head, mate.
Grow up.
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 05:29:27 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

You mean grow up like Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Sienna, , George
Fox, St. John of the Cross, The Wesley brothers,Galileo (Roman
Catholic) , not to forget the monks and nuns who devoted in prayer and
work..
Few of them are morons. You ought to look them over casually, but I
doubt iif you will. It might make your head ache and your attitude
change just a little.
By the way, I've read Darwin, Gould, Stringer and, for my sins when I
was young and didn't know any better. I also read Richard Dawkins and
Ayn Rand. Dawkins disappointed me; he didn't come up with a single new
theory and, worst of all for a scientist, no hypothesis that can be
replicated.
As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.
Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Dichard Rawkins"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 10:29:41 AM

Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<6fbmj2lv7024m9018l2nroddr29j18algc@4ax.com>

Dawkins disappointed me; he didn't come up with a single new
theory and, worst of all for a scientist, no hypothesis that can be
replicated.

He didn't need to. All the flaws in Christianity and theism have been known for
ages. The flaws remain relatively unchanged because religion remains relatively
unchanged. Christianity has never been able to offer a coherent, logical system
that stands up to any serious scrutiny, because it is saddled with all the
fundamental illogic that results from having stolen concepts without preserving
their context (it's called plagiarism). So we end up with snakes that tell the
truth yet are called liars, and gods that lie, but are called Truth, and gods
that kill themselves in order to appease their own anger at what they
themselves made. If you think any of this is not obvious hokum then of course
you will find Dawkins disappointing.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2900
[ Followup-To: alt.bible ]
.

User: "George Peatty"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 12:23:17 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:29:41 GMT, "Dichard Rawkins"
<God?JustSayNo@large.com> wrote:

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I
will frustrate."�a{�a Isaiah 29:14}
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of
this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in
the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was
pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who
believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is
wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's
strength.
.

User: "Dichard Rawkins"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 05:40:55 PM

George Peatty <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
<h5anj2ds6qgbsss2o6lfi7e93h5hs0efc6@4ax.com>

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I
will frustrate."�a{�a Isaiah 29:14}
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of
this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in
the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was
pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who
believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is
wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's
strength.

Wow. What a surprise. The Bible says it's own contents are not foolishness. And
here all this time I thought the Bible would have said something like this:
"This is utter foolishness, nay, naught braineth ought contain it. Readeth not
this weak diatribe, for as the empty beer bottle is stark in it's vacuum, so
too this scripture containeth nothing and nothingness. Thinketh for thyself,
with thy brain that God has given thee. Hark not to fools that quoteth empty
rhetoric, be not impressed by words, for what need has the Almighty for human
linguistic frailties? Can not he inserteth his meaning directly into thine head
when it suiteth him thus? Why doth such a being need help from an epileptic
going to Syria over nineteen centuries ago? Why doth thou incessantly
impeacheth the Almighty with thine petty requests and puerile praises? Knoweth
not that he knoweth his own greatness, and knoweth well enough not to listen to
thine prattle? Leaveth thine divine ear some peace and goeth and playeth in
thine street."
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2901
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 07:24:50 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <6fbmj2lv7024m9018l2nroddr29j18algc@4ax.com>

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

You conflate my "sounding moronic" with being moronic.
The above were infected by a virulent meme.
I'm sure that they all had other parasites as well.

You ought to look them over casually, but I
doubt iif you will. It might make your head ache and your attitude
change just a little.

Well, that's the way to get on my side...
Turn me into a straw man!

By the way, I've read Darwin, Gould, Stringer and, for my sins when I
was young and didn't know any better. I also read Richard Dawkins and
Ayn Rand. Dawkins disappointed me; he didn't come up with a single new
theory and, worst of all for a scientist, no hypothesis that can be
replicated.

That is your problem.

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

"Feelings" don't cut it as proof of anything at all.

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 06:08:21 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

And this proves it wasn't in their heads, how?
You need to look at your own attitude. Your religiobn's own aphorism
about beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.
You believe in something you have yet to demonstrate outside your
imagination.
So did they.
Either demonstrate it is real, or admit you have nothing to say on the
subject. Especially to atheists and others with a better grasp of
reality.
There are zillions of different god-beliefs out there.
Until you demonstrate yours (and the people you mentioned) is real
there is no reason to treat it any differently than all the others, ie
just a belief.

So what?
That is the world of reality no matter how much you deny it when it
conflicts with your delusion.

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

That's your problem.
But you've been in alt.atheism long enough to know better.

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 01:00:09 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:08:21 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

And this proves it wasn't in their heads, how?

You need to look at your own attitude. Your religiobn's own aphorism
about beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.

You believe in something you have yet to demonstrate outside your
imagination.

So did they.

Either demonstrate it is real, or admit you have nothing to say on the
subject. Especially to atheists and others with a better grasp of
reality.

There are zillions of different god-beliefs out there.

Until you demonstrate yours (and the people you mentioned) is real
there is no reason to treat it any differently than all the others, ie
just a belief.

So what?

That is the world of reality no matter how much you deny it when it
conflicts with your delusion.

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

That's your problem.

But you've been in alt.atheism long enough to know better.

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 01:02:44 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:00:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:08:21 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

And this proves it wasn't in their heads, how?

You need to look at your own attitude. Your religiobn's own aphorism
about beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.

You believe in something you have yet to demonstrate outside your
imagination.

So did they.

Either demonstrate it is real, or admit you have nothing to say on the
subject. Especially to atheists and others with a better grasp of
reality.

There are zillions of different god-beliefs out there.

Until you demonstrate yours (and the people you mentioned) is real
there is no reason to treat it any differently than all the others, ie
just a belief.

So what?

That is the world of reality no matter how much you deny it when it
conflicts with your delusion.

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

That's your problem.

But you've been in alt.atheism long enough to know better.

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

Translation: you have no answer.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 05:17:23 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:00:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:08:21 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

And this proves it wasn't in their heads, how?

Couldn't answer this so you resorted to a standard theist dishonesty.

You need to look at your own attitude. Your religiobn's own aphorism
about beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.

Well, hypcocrite?

You believe in something you have yet to demonstrate outside your
imagination.

So did they.

Well?

Either demonstrate it is real, or admit you have nothing to say on the
subject. Especially to atheists and others with a better grasp of
reality.

Well?

There are zillions of different god-beliefs out there.

Couldn't admit this?

Until you demonstrate yours (and the people you mentioned) is real
there is no reason to treat it any differently than all the others, ie
just a belief.

Or this?

So what?

Well?

That is the world of reality no matter how much you deny it when it
conflicts with your delusion.

Well?

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

That's your problem.

And it doesn't stop you being as big an ***** as the other theists
here.

But you've been in alt.atheism long enough to know better.

Well?

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

The real Lizz emerges.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 08:17:20 AM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:17:23 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <lg5pj29g3tntha05q6jq7d3pmiae7k7fjv@4ax.com>

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:00:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:08:21 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

And this proves it wasn't in their heads, how?

Couldn't answer this so you resorted to a standard theist dishonesty.

You need to look at your own attitude. Your religiobn's own aphorism
about beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.

Well, hypcocrite?

You believe in something you have yet to demonstrate outside your
imagination.

So did they.

Well?

Either demonstrate it is real, or admit you have nothing to say on the
subject. Especially to atheists and others with a better grasp of
reality.

Well?

There are zillions of different god-beliefs out there.

Couldn't admit this?

Until you demonstrate yours (and the people you mentioned) is real
there is no reason to treat it any differently than all the others, ie
just a belief.

Or this?

So what?

Well?

That is the world of reality no matter how much you deny it when it
conflicts with your delusion.

Well?

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

That's your problem.

And it doesn't stop you being as big an ***** as the other theists
here.

But you've been in alt.atheism long enough to know better.

Well?

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

The real Lizz emerges.

If this is "for real", then I have to agree: Liz has lost it.
Either that, or it is a reasonably good forgery.
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 12:26:42 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:47:20 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

If this is "for real", then I have to agree: Liz has lost it.
Either that, or it is a reasonably good forgery.

It's neither. I didn't read it. Can't a girl do anything else that
spend her time on Usenet?
If it's the theology you can't stomach, well, I can't help that. We
can argue belief and non-belief for decades and I doubt if it will
change thy mind or mine. Remember, if this stuff wasn't crossposted to
sci.skeptic you'd never have to hear from me again.
Lizz 'Got to go-it's that damned Real Life again' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 12:42:16 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:47:20 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:17:23 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <lg5pj29g3tntha05q6jq7d3pmiae7k7fjv@4ax.com>

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:00:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:08:21 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

And this proves it wasn't in their heads, how?

Couldn't answer this so you resorted to a standard theist dishonesty.

You need to look at your own attitude. Your religiobn's own aphorism
about beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.

Well, hypcocrite?

You believe in something you have yet to demonstrate outside your
imagination.

So did they.

Well?

Either demonstrate it is real, or admit you have nothing to say on the
subject. Especially to atheists and others with a better grasp of
reality.

Well?

There are zillions of different god-beliefs out there.

Couldn't admit this?

Until you demonstrate yours (and the people you mentioned) is real
there is no reason to treat it any differently than all the others, ie
just a belief.

Or this?

So what?

Well?

That is the world of reality no matter how much you deny it when it
conflicts with your delusion.

Well?

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

That's your problem.

And it doesn't stop you being as big an ***** as the other theists
here.

But you've been in alt.atheism long enough to know better.

Well?

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

The real Lizz emerges.

If this is "for real", then I have to agree: Liz has lost it.
Either that, or it is a reasonably good forgery.

Giganews has a very long retention - too long sometimes,this was
almost a million messages and Agent took forever. But if it's a
forgery it's a good one. All her old stuff is from
dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk via 4ax.com.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 08:23:48 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:42:16 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <livpj21ascuie0f0iln1v478vtltilibhd@4ax.com>

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:47:20 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:17:23 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <lg5pj29g3tntha05q6jq7d3pmiae7k7fjv@4ax.com>

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:00:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:08:21 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:29:27 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

And this proves it wasn't in their heads, how?

Couldn't answer this so you resorted to a standard theist dishonesty.

You need to look at your own attitude. Your religiobn's own aphorism
about beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.

Well, hypcocrite?

You believe in something you have yet to demonstrate outside your
imagination.

So did they.

Well?

Either demonstrate it is real, or admit you have nothing to say on the
subject. Especially to atheists and others with a better grasp of
reality.

Well?

There are zillions of different god-beliefs out there.

Couldn't admit this?

Until you demonstrate yours (and the people you mentioned) is real
there is no reason to treat it any differently than all the others, ie
just a belief.

Or this?

So what?

Well?

That is the world of reality no matter how much you deny it when it
conflicts with your delusion.

Well?

As a Quaker, I am free of bibliophilia. just lie the mainline
denominations (always excluded are the Southern Baptists and various
other literalists) feels much the same way.

That's your problem.

And it doesn't stop you being as big an ***** as the other theists
here.

But you've been in alt.atheism long enough to know better.

Well?

Lizz 'Shakin' All Over' Holmans

--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

The real Lizz emerges.

If this is "for real", then I have to agree: Liz has lost it.
Either that, or it is a reasonably good forgery.

I am really bored with this.
It seems that she was for real.
Oh well.
I have a life to live...
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 08:57:11 PM

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:53:48 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

I am really bored with this.
It seems that she was for real.
Oh well.
I have a life to live...

Congratulations. We find that we *do* agree on something.
Lizz 'so we all go down the road, but I won't insist that you rumpeta'
Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 03:36:20 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:25:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On 21 Oct 2006 17:56:26 -0700, "Chellie" <TNotch1@aol.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1161478586.728153.122870@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>

Michael Gray wrote:

Chellie wrote:

Michael wrote:

Then you admit that your god is a delusion.
Thank you for that.

**********************************************************************************************************

No I didn't. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted but in that
day, you will know without a shadow of a doubt that God is real. This
the reason why I don't get upset or try to bash people's heads in (not
literally) about God being real. I just know one day there will be not
one hypocrite. All will know.

Striving to perfection and holiness in Jesus Christ,
Chellie

--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 07:27:07 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:36:20 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <6abmj25pnut4et63im0jktq45kqgprt83b@4ax.com>

Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

If you have nothing better to say in support of your faith, then I
suggest that you say nothing at all.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	22 Oct 2006 07:51:44 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:57:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:36:20 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <6abmj25pnut4et63im0jktq45kqgprt83b@4ax.com>

Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

If you have nothing better to say in support of your faith, then I
suggest that you say nothing at all.

It's an admission she had no response.
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 03:42:40 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:51:44 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:57:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:36:20 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <6abmj25pnut4et63im0jktq45kqgprt83b@4ax.com>

Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

If you have nothing better to say in support of your faith, then I
suggest that you say nothing at all.

It's an admission she had no response

Lizz 'ever Homer slept sometme' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 04:23:02 AM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:42:40 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:51:44 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:57:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:36:20 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <6abmj25pnut4et63im0jktq45kqgprt83b@4ax.com>

Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

If you have nothing better to say in support of your faith, then I
suggest that you say nothing at all.

It's an admission she had no response

Lizz 'ever Homer slept sometme' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

The admission that deep inside you are just as big an ***** as the
other theists here, and that your surface persona is a sham.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 08:12:18 AM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:23:02 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <5d2pj2tbek50n5pba3t1scm47455s42i0p@4ax.com>

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:42:40 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:51:44 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:57:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:36:20 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <6abmj25pnut4et63im0jktq45kqgprt83b@4ax.com>

Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

If you have nothing better to say in support of your faith, then I
suggest that you say nothing at all.

It's an admission she had no response

Lizz 'ever Homer slept sometme' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

The admission that deep inside you are just as big an ***** as the
other theists here, and that your surface persona is a sham.

Is it just me, or do I get the distinct feeling that we are conversing
with an imposter?
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 12:04:54 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:42:18 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

Is it just me, or do I get the distinct feeling that we are conversing
with an imposter?

Well, I'm real. I can't speak for anybody else.
Lizz 'got my hair got my eyes, I've got my mouth--and none if it's for
sale' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 12:01:46 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:23:02 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

The admission that deep inside you are just as big an ***** as the
other theists here, and that your surface persona is a sham.

All it means is that I didn't read the post.
Thee is extrapolating ahead of thy data. There are tons of posts I
haven't responded to because 1) I do have a life', and 2) does thee
believe I read *everything* that is posted?
As for the ***** remark, I must admit that I am much the same on
Usenet as I am in Real Life. If taking issue with posts that say 'All
Christians do X' or 'All Atheists are X' is thy only criteria for for
judging my personality, thee is hardly getting the whole picture.
Lizz 'My atheist caro sposo would definitely disagree' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 06:53:56 PM

In article <vrspj25kodipekrilqb2ntsbb77vnr7s68@4ax.com> Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:23:02 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

The admission that deep inside you are just as big an ***** as the
other theists here, and that your surface persona is a sham.

All it means is that I didn't read the post.

Thee is extrapolating ahead of thy data. There are tons of posts I
haven't responded to because 1) I do have a life', and 2) does thee
believe I read *everything* that is posted?

As for the ***** remark, I must admit that I am much the same on
Usenet as I am in Real Life. If taking issue with posts that say 'All
Christians do X' or 'All Atheists are X' is thy only criteria for for
judging my personality, thee is hardly getting the whole picture.

Lizz 'My atheist caro sposo would definitely disagree' Holmans

So would lots of the rest of us.
I cannot BELIEVE this series of exchanges. Christopher and Michael
both need to take a couple of steps back.
-- cary
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 01:15:47 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:01:46 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:23:02 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

The admission that deep inside you are just as big an ***** as the
other theists here, and that your surface persona is a sham.

All it means is that I didn't read the post.

Thee is extrapolating ahead of thy data. There are tons of posts I
haven't responded to because 1) I do have a life', and 2) does thee
believe I read *everything* that is posted?

As for the ***** remark, I must admit that I am much the same on
Usenet as I am in Real Life. If taking issue with posts that say 'All
Christians do X' or 'All Atheists are X' is thy only criteria for for
judging my personality, thee is hardly getting the whole picture.

I saw somebody who ignored several points and rudely just said
"Rumpete, rumpete, rumpete".
We expected better of you than that.

Lizz 'My atheist caro sposo would definitely disagree' Holmans

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	23 Oct 2006 05:31:35 PM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:15:47 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

I saw somebody who ignored several points and rudely just said
"Rumpete, rumpete, rumpete".

I carelessly hit the send button whist doing something else. That's
all I can think of. I don't remember doing it; I would remember if I'd
done it on purpose

We expected better of you than that.

So do I. I'm not usually that careless. And I'm seldom rude by
accident.
'Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta' is my .sig. It shows up every time the
send button is pushed. As for its meaning, I refer you to that
excellent tome written by Violet Dupont: _The Elephant and the Bad
Baby_.
Lizz 'But the Bad Baby went to bed' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.

Page 23 of 36