Re: Why Fear and Detest the Atheist?

[Sid9]

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Hatter wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 11:45 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hatterwrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 9:55 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:21:45 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his
>>>>>> jaw to eat his own waste <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 4:26 pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person.
>>>>>>>> Atheist Stalin had no more of a beef killing people than
>>>>>>>> Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry but you're going to either have to prove this
>>>>>>> statement logically or present evidence, statistical evidence.
>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, I have tons of evidences that christians are bad.
>>>
>>>>>> But because of their belief.
>>>>>> No one is bad because of a lack of a belief, which is exactly
>>>>>> what atheism is.
>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>> Did you know there was a word in the English language:
>>>> anti-guggler.
>>>
>>>> Before I mentioned it, did you lack belief in anti-gugglers? Do you
>>>> lack belief now?
>>>
>>> Nonsense question.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> Only because it prove your point is wrong. You dance aside and fail
>> to stand up to the light of reason. You are a coward.
>
> You are a moron, expecting substantive answers to nonsense questions.

You can't prove there's a god.
All you do is make evasive statements.
No proof is offered. None.

Then of course there's the "name calling"
which further defeats your argument

 

[Hatter]

On Jan 23, 10:20

 

[Virgil]

In article <OridnRoU8c1TlQranZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Richard Anacker wrote:
>
> > Roy Jose Lorr , 01.23.2008:
> >
> >
> >>There is only one God.
> >
> >
> > Why?
>
> What difference does it make to you?

Cause we find no evidence for that many of them.

 

[Virgil]

In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:


> It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery

It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
\

 

[Virgil]

In article <tdGdnWaT_q5KxAranZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Richard Anacker wrote:
>
> > Roy Jose Lorr , 01.23.2008:
> >
> >
> >>>Which "one god" is that?
> >>
> >>What difference does it make to you?
> >
> >
> > Is it possible that you answer questions? Obviously not.
>
> Is it possible for you to read the thread? Obviously not.

Is it possible for Lorr to deal with any issue honestly? Obviously not.

 

[Virgil]

In article <tdGdnWGT_q6OxwranZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Richard Anacker wrote:
>
> > Roy Jose Lorr , 01.23.2008:
> >
> >
> >>>>There is only one God.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why?
> >>
> >>What difference does it make to you?
> >
> >
> > Apparently don't you have answers. Nor aguments. So what the **** are
> > you doing here exept of spamming?
>
> Projection suits you.

Which carefully avoids answering the question.
But then Lorr has no answer.

 

[Virgil]

In article <hPqdnVlANJtKxwranZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Richard Anacker wrote:
>
> > Roy Jose Lorr , 01.23.2008:
> >
> >
> >>You are a denier of reality.
> >
> >
> > And you are a claimer without evidences. You claim youre reality as
> > the only true one (what is an utter bullshit) and tell this right into
> > the face of people that did't invite you to do so. So you are an
> > abuser as well. Is this your xian mission to do so? To be a pain in
> > the ass of undeluded people?
> >
> > No, this time I don't expect an answer, which you would avoid anyway,
> > as usual. This time I stick you in my killfile to the other morons
> > that use to hang arround here with their cruddy sense of mission.
> >
> > Have a nice life.
>
> Hallelujah! Not a bad sermon. Could use a bit more fire and brimstone
> though.

Can't be very good when its target is still among the damned.

 

[Virgil]

In article <hPqdnVhANJvfxgranZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Only because it prove your point is wrong. You dance aside and fail to
> > stand up to the light of reason. You are a coward.
>
> You are a moron, expecting substantive answers to nonsense questions.

Lorr is a hyrdocephalic idiot to so misrepresent things.

 

[Sid9]

Virgil wrote:
> In article <OridnRoU8c1TlQranZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard Anacker wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Jose Lorr , 01.23.2008:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is only one God.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> What difference does it make to you?
>
> Cause we find no evidence for that many of them.

All the gods are false,
except the one your
mother told you is real.

All the mother's are right

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Hatter wrote:

> On Jan 23, 10:20 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Hatterwrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 22, 11:45 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Hatterwrote:
>>
>>>>>On Jan 20, 9:55 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Michael Gray wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:21:45 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to
>>>>>>>eat his own waste <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>On Jan 19, 4:26 pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had
>>>>>>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>
>>>>>>>>I'm sorry but you're going to either have to prove this statement
>>>>>>>>logically or present evidence, statistical evidence.
>>
>>>>>>>>By the way, I have tons of evidences that christians are bad.
>>
>>>>>>>But because of their belief.
>>>>>>>No one is bad because of a lack of a belief, which is exactly what
>>>>>>>atheism is.
>>
>>>>>>There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>Did you know there was a word in the English language: anti-guggler.
>>
>>>>>Before I mentioned it, did you lack belief in anti-gugglers? Do you
>>>>>lack belief now?
>>
>>>>Nonsense question.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Only because it prove your point is wrong. You dance aside and fail to
>>>stand up to the light of reason. You are a coward.
>>
>>You are a moron, expecting substantive answers to nonsense questions.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> FIrst of all, it was an accurate question that pinned down your lies.
> Second of all, I expected you to dance around it and insult me, so you
> DID meet my expectations of the depths of your lack of your character,
> intellect, and backbone.

If you don't know the question was intentially nonsensocal then you're
more of a moron than you appear.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:32:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:48:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <KbWdnQ30CtwnHgjanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>>Here is one example:
>>>>
>>>>Exodus 21
>>>>
>>>> 1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
>>>>
>>>> 2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But
>>>>in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he
>>>>comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes,
>>>>she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears
>>>>him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
>>>>master, and only the man shall go free.
>>>>
>>>> 5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and
>>>>children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him
>>>>before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
>>>>pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
>>>>
>>>> 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
>>>>menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her
>>>>for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell
>>>>her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects
>>>>her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he
>>>>marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food,
>>>>clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these
>>>>three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
>>>
>>>There is not a shred of immorality in the above. What transpires is the
>>>giving of law that mitigates the brutal aspects of slavery that is
>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>
>>
>> So, you claim that slavery is moral in your 'absolute morality' system.
>
>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery, slavery that is
>inherent to the human condition.

Once again, you prove that you are a moral relativist. You endorse
slavery. Slavery is not inherent in the human condition.

>> Your morality stinks. It is vile, pathetic, excuses any evil. You are
>> more corrupt than a dead deer on the side of the road on a 100 F day.
>> You are only good for maggots and flies to feast on.
>
>You are a denier of reality.

Your fake morality is clearly part of that reality.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
<Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>
>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>\

But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
Morality of Roy's God.

 

[bob young]

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

> Richard Anacker wrote:
>
> > Virgil , 01.21.2008:
> >
> >
> >>>Irrelevant, idiot.
> >>
> >>It is relevant to your credibility
> >
> >
> > Which credibility? This fool has none at all.
>
> Good to see atheist morons stroking each other in public.

Sad to see what the result of religious brainwashing
produces

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Free Lunch wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
> Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
> <Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>
>>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>>
>>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>>\
>
>
> But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
> Morality of Roy's God.

No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Free Lunch wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:32:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
> <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:48:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>><KbWdnQ30CtwnHgjanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Here is one example:
>>>>>
>>>>>Exodus 21
>>>>>
>>>>>1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
>>>>>
>>>>>2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But
>>>>>in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he
>>>>>comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes,
>>>>>she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears
>>>>>him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
>>>>>master, and only the man shall go free.
>>>>>
>>>>>5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and
>>>>>children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him
>>>>>before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
>>>>>pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
>>>>>
>>>>>7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
>>>>>menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her
>>>>>for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell
>>>>>her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects
>>>>>her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he
>>>>>marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food,
>>>>>clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these
>>>>>three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
>>>>
>>>>There is not a shred of immorality in the above. What transpires is the
>>>>giving of law that mitigates the brutal aspects of slavery that is
>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, you claim that slavery is moral in your 'absolute morality' system.
>>
>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery, slavery that is
>>inherent to the human condition.
>
>
> Once again, you prove that you are a moral relativist. You endorse
> slavery. Slavery is not inherent in the human condition.

Name a human condition that is free of slavery.

>
>
>>>Your morality stinks. It is vile, pathetic, excuses any evil. You are
>>>more corrupt than a dead deer on the side of the road on a 100 F day.
>>>You are only good for maggots and flies to feast on.
>>
>>You are a denier of reality.
>
>
> Your fake morality is clearly part of that reality.

Shallow suits you.

 

[Virgil]

In article <mLGdnbYsINYHsQXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> Free Lunch wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
> > Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
> > <Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
> >
> >>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
> >>
> >>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
> >>\
> >
> >
> > But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
> > Morality of Roy's God.
>
> No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.

There are all sorts of creatures which do not keep slaves, so it is a
human sin to keep them, and not physically necessary at all.

 

[Virgil]

In article <mLGdnbEsINa9sAXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Once again, you prove that you are a moral relativist. You endorse
> > slavery. Slavery is not inherent in the human condition.
>
> Name a human condition that is free of slavery.

Name one that isn't.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<mLGdnbYsINYHsQXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
>> Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
>> <Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>>
>>>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>>>
>>>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>>>\
>>
>>
>> But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
>> Morality of Roy's God.
>
>No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.

That is an interesting assertion. Too bad you can't provide any evidence
to support it.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:16:01 -0800, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<mLGdnbEsINa9sAXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:32:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:48:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>><KbWdnQ30CtwnHgjanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Here is one example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exodus 21
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But
>>>>>>in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he
>>>>>>comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes,
>>>>>>she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears
>>>>>>him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
>>>>>>master, and only the man shall go free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and
>>>>>>children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him
>>>>>>before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
>>>>>>pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
>>>>>>menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her
>>>>>>for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell
>>>>>>her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects
>>>>>>her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he
>>>>>>marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food,
>>>>>>clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these
>>>>>>three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is not a shred of immorality in the above. What transpires is the
>>>>>giving of law that mitigates the brutal aspects of slavery that is
>>>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, you claim that slavery is moral in your 'absolute morality' system.
>>>
>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery, slavery that is
>>>inherent to the human condition.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you prove that you are a moral relativist. You endorse
>> slavery. Slavery is not inherent in the human condition.
>
>Name a human condition that is free of slavery.

Slavery is illegal and extremely rare in the Western nations.

>>>>Your morality stinks. It is vile, pathetic, excuses any evil. You are
>>>>more corrupt than a dead deer on the side of the road on a 100 F day.
>>>>You are only good for maggots and flies to feast on.
>>>
>>>You are a denier of reality.
>>
>> Your fake morality is clearly part of that reality.
>
>Shallow suits you.

Even the simplest ideas are too hard for you to grasp.

 

[Michelle Malkin]

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ng0hp3hp1ul5l1vlimrp2bpsas3v9vmlen@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
> <mLGdnbYsINYHsQXanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:40:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
>>> Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote in
>>> <Virgil-E65D90.12400023012008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>>In article <WaidnS4iNY9SlAranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is moral to mitigate the brutal aspects of slavery
>>>>
>>>>It is more moral to 'mitigate' slavery out of existence.
>>>>\
>>>
>>>
>>> But Roy told us that his god demands slavery: it's part of the Absolute
>>> Morality of Roy's God.
>>
>>No. Slavery is part of the physical nature of the world.
>
> That is an interesting assertion. Too bad you can't provide any evidence
> to support it.

For slavery to exist, all you need is one slave.
Let it be Roy. I'm sure he'll be willing to do
all the dirty work, since it's part of the
physical nature of the world and demanded
by his God.