Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Starkiller wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:50:27 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> > wrote: > > >>Starkiller wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:49:11 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Karl Johanson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>God needs no proof but since you insist: your existence is proof >>>>>>enough. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Batman needs no proof but since you insist: your existence is proof >>>>>enough. >>>> >>>>Perhaps you'll explain how my existence proves the existence of batman. >>> >>> >>>I believe they think that you were created by Batman. >>> >>>Y'know Robin did go around saying "holy" a lot. >>> >>>I dunno, I'm just sayin'.... >> >>In other words you're just sayin nothin. > > > As the old saying goes. Fuck you if you can't take a joke. Ditto. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 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. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Richard Anacker wrote: > Roy Jose Lorr , 01.21.2008: > > >>> >>>>Describe something you 'lack' belief in. >>> >>> >>>gods. >> >>You can believe or disbelieve in gods but you can't claim "lack" of >>belief in them after acknowledging the concept. >> >> >>>That was easy. >> >>Sorry... try again >> >> >>>And before you try it - no, I have no immage of something like that, I >>>am even not interested in it. >> >>You have an image of gods, if not you would be unaware of the concept >>and would have nothing whatsoever to say about them. > > > You bloody fuckin moron, don't tell me what I have and what not. Just > because you threw a word in a conversation it doesn't mean that this > word brings an image in someones head. What image do you have when I > tell you there is a glibguthroda waiting for you after your dead? But > to make it as cheap as your pseudoargumentation - just to shout out > "pink elephant" doesn't bring one to existence, neither does it need > any faith not to belive in one.> > Stop smoking crack, it damages your brain-cell and then you have > nothing that tells you, that you have to shit.> > Oh, this lousy religous bastards. Life is a red herring, eh? BAGL Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Roy Jose Lorr wrote: > >>Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: >> >> >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>Hash: SHA1 >>> >>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Richard Anacker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Roy Jose Lorr , 01.20.2008: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In your indoctrinated mind. >>>>>> >>>>>>So you pray. >>>>>> >>>>>>There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. Lack of belief is >>>>>>an impossibility. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As I said >>>>>In your indoctrinated mind. >>>> >>>>Describe something you 'lack' belief in. >>>> >>> >>>Your intelligence. >> >>Dufuss, you just admitted knowledge of something you disbelieve. That >>means you do not have a "lack" of knowledge of my intelligence. Of >>course your disbelief in the matter is a crock but for the sake of this >>argument that's neither here nor there. >> > > Dingbat, I KNOW there is intelligence, I lack the belief in yours. > > Man, stupidity is your forte ain't it RoyBoy? Try to get it right dufuss or would that be asking to much of yourself? Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 SteveL wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:56:36 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> > wrote: > > >>Richard Anacker wrote: >> >> >>>Roy Jose Lorr , 01.20.2008: >>> >>> >>> >>>>There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'. >>> >>> >>>In your indoctrinated mind. >> >>So you pray. >> >>There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. Lack of belief is an >>impossibility. > > > Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Which 'middle' might that be? Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste wrote: > The point of this post was about the validity of fearing and detesting > atheists. > > The only evidence offered by a few that atheists are the scourge of > humanity using fallacious reasoning. god created laws. Atheists > don't believe in god. Therefore atheists don't believe in laws. What > an absurd argument. There are a number of fallacies with this > argument. > > God created laws: No proof is offered for this. Laws could have > evolved as civilizations evolved. > > Atheists don't believe in god: True enough. But the following > conclusion does not follow from the these two statements. > > Atheists don't believe in laws: does one have to believe in a god to > believe in a law? Why? Atheists believe in scientific laws so why > not other laws? > > Also, if someone believes in a god does that person also believe in > laws? And if that is true, then why do so many believers in a god > disobey laws? I guess a belief in laws doesn't prevent someone from > breaking laws? What's the point of bringing up a belief in god > leading to a belief in laws if those who believe in god, believe in > laws but don't obey those laws? Straw man. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: > Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste wrote: > >> The point of this post was about the validity of fearing and detesting >> atheists. >> >> The only evidence offered by a few that atheists are the scourge of >> humanity using fallacious reasoning. god created laws. Atheists >> don't believe in god. Therefore atheists don't believe in laws. What >> an absurd argument. There are a number of fallacies with this >> argument. >> > There is another that they like to use a great deal of the time: > > "How can you have morals if you have no higher authority?" > > Silly I know, but, it's out there. Without a 'higher authority' morals are relative, based on personal desires regarding individual situations, making them not morals but expediencies. > > > >> God created laws: No proof is offered for this. Laws could have >> evolved as civilizations evolved. >> >> Atheists don't believe in god: True enough. But the following >> conclusion does not follow from the these two statements. >> > Actually, a small point of contention, that should read "gods". And > atheist rejects the existence of all gods, not specific ones. I see, 'all' excludes 'specific'. BAGL > > Rejection specific gods is the realm of the theists. > > > >> Atheists don't believe in laws: does one have to believe in a god to >> believe in a law? Why? Atheists believe in scientific laws so why >> not other laws? >> > Yeah, I don't believe in the law. Which is why i spent a number of > years enforcing the law.> > Hmmm, go figure. Proving it doesn't take brains to enforce laws. > > > >> Also, if someone believes in a god does that person also believe in >> laws? And if that is true, then why do so many believers in a god >> disobey laws? I guess a belief in laws doesn't prevent someone from >> breaking laws? What's the point of bringing up a belief in god >> leading to a belief in laws if those who believe in god, believe in >> laws but don't obey those laws? > > > > Problem is, the laws they believe in, that came from those gods, are > some pretty sick laws. Perhaps you'd care to describe one of those sick laws? BAGL Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Roy Jose Lorr wrote: > >>Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: >> >> >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>Hash: SHA1 >>> >>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Michael Gray wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:21:45 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his >>>>>>>jaw to >>>>>>>eat his own waste <goofindoo@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'. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Care to try and prove that one? >>>>> >>>>>Probably not. You never do. >>>> >>>>My mistake, I thought this was a philosophy group. >>>> >>>>Dufuss, there are only two choices: belief and disbelief... there is no >>>>such thing as 'lack' of belief after the fact. >>>> >>> >>>You want it to be in the philosophy group, fine. >>> >>>But I don't read philosophy groups. My news server does not carry >>>philosophy groups. And I don't answer to you for your failures to >>>understand how the Internet works. >>> >>>You don't want my response, okay. Don't post to alt.atheism. >>> >>>Is that simple enough for ya, or do you need someone to hold your hand >>>while you trim group names? >> >>Keep whining and puling, it suits you. >> > > More of the trademarked RoyBoy projection. > > I see you still can't actually deal with the issues posted. Typical. > > BTW junior, I lack belief that you have any intelligence at all. > > See, you can lack belief in something. Take your stupid argument and > stuff it up your ass. Slither off, dufuss. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:33:10 -0800, in alt.atheism Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in <aI6dnRB_GIytJgnanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>: >Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: > >> Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste wrote: >> >>> The point of this post was about the validity of fearing and detesting >>> atheists. >>> >>> The only evidence offered by a few that atheists are the scourge of >>> humanity using fallacious reasoning. god created laws. Atheists >>> don't believe in god. Therefore atheists don't believe in laws. What >>> an absurd argument. There are a number of fallacies with this >>> argument. >>> >> There is another that they like to use a great deal of the time: >> >> "How can you have morals if you have no higher authority?" >> >> Silly I know, but, it's out there. > >Without a 'higher authority' morals are relative, based on personal >desires regarding individual situations, making them not morals but >expediencies. Morals are always relative. Those who claim to have a higher authority just attribute the moral code they want to that authority. >>> God created laws: No proof is offered for this. Laws could have >>> evolved as civilizations evolved. >>> >>> Atheists don't believe in god: True enough. But the following >>> conclusion does not follow from the these two statements. >>> >> Actually, a small point of contention, that should read "gods". And >> atheist rejects the existence of all gods, not specific ones. > >I see, 'all' excludes 'specific'. BAGL All is a more general term, and more accurate in this case. Your quibbling doesn't help you at all. >> Rejection specific gods is the realm of the theists. >> > >> >>> Atheists don't believe in laws: does one have to believe in a god to >>> believe in a law? Why? Atheists believe in scientific laws so why >>> not other laws? >>> >> Yeah, I don't believe in the law. Which is why i spent a number of >> years enforcing the law.> >> Hmmm, go figure. > >Proving it doesn't take brains to enforce laws. > >> > >> >>> Also, if someone believes in a god does that person also believe in >>> laws? And if that is true, then why do so many believers in a god >>> disobey laws? I guess a belief in laws doesn't prevent someone from >>> breaking laws? What's the point of bringing up a belief in god >>> leading to a belief in laws if those who believe in god, believe in >>> laws but don't obey those laws? >> >> > >> Problem is, the laws they believe in, that came from those gods, are >> some pretty sick laws. > >Perhaps you'd care to describe one of those sick laws? BAGL How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than chattel? Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Free Lunch wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:33:10 -0800, in alt.atheism > Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in > <aI6dnRB_GIytJgnanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>: > >>Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: >> >> >>>Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The point of this post was about the validity of fearing and detesting >>>>atheists. >>>> >>>>The only evidence offered by a few that atheists are the scourge of >>>>humanity using fallacious reasoning. god created laws. Atheists >>>>don't believe in god. Therefore atheists don't believe in laws. What >>>>an absurd argument. There are a number of fallacies with this >>>>argument. >>>> >>> >>>There is another that they like to use a great deal of the time: >>> >>>"How can you have morals if you have no higher authority?" >>> >>>Silly I know, but, it's out there. >> >>Without a 'higher authority' morals are relative, based on personal >>desires regarding individual situations, making them not morals but >>expediencies. > > > Morals are always relative. Hardly. Those who claim to have a higher authority > just attribute the moral code they want to that authority. Those wo do that are no different than those who believe self is the higher authority. > > >>>>God created laws: No proof is offered for this. Laws could have >>>>evolved as civilizations evolved. >>>> >>>>Atheists don't believe in god: True enough. But the following >>>>conclusion does not follow from the these two statements. >>>> >>> >>>Actually, a small point of contention, that should read "gods". And >>>atheist rejects the existence of all gods, not specific ones. >> >>I see, 'all' excludes 'specific'. BAGL > > > All is a more general term, and more accurate in this case. Your > quibbling doesn't help you at all. Who is doing the 'quibbling? BAGL > > >>>Rejection specific gods is the realm of the theists. >>> > >>> >>>>Atheists don't believe in laws: does one have to believe in a god to >>>>believe in a law? Why? Atheists believe in scientific laws so why >>>>not other laws? >>>> >>> >>>Yeah, I don't believe in the law. Which is why i spent a number of >>>years enforcing the law.> >>>Hmmm, go figure. >> >>Proving it doesn't take brains to enforce laws. >> >> >>> > >>> >>>> Also, if someone believes in a god does that person also believe in >>>>laws? And if that is true, then why do so many believers in a god >>>>disobey laws? I guess a belief in laws doesn't prevent someone from >>>>breaking laws? What's the point of bringing up a belief in god >>>>leading to a belief in laws if those who believe in god, believe in >>>>laws but don't obey those laws? >>> >>> > >>>Problem is, the laws they believe in, that came from those gods, are >>>some pretty sick laws. >> >>Perhaps you'd care to describe one of those sick laws? BAGL > > > How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than > chattel? Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. Quote
Guest wbyeats@ireland.com Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:36:53 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: >wbyeats@ireland.com wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Raymond wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Jan 19, 7:26?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. >>>> >>>> >>>>And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist >>>>Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush >>> >>>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How >>>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality. >> >> >> "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of >> the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am >> fighting for the work of the Lord." >> >> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a >> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by >> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned >> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a >> sufferer but as a fighter." >> >> Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a >> Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of >> God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best. > >You make my point. Politics has people saying all sorts of untruths. As >I said. .....and all the good little Christians just went along. Says much more about religion than politics. And there are a great many including yourself who's love to see the two go hand in hand in the US. >>>>Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no >>>>troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders. >>>>Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't >>>>understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or >>>>history book. >>> >>>Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a >>>tutorial in reality. >> >> >> So you're going to rewrite history to rationalize your ignorance? >> Figures! > >Ignorance is taking necessarily biased accounts of history at face value. Biased acount of what? But I do understand your mindset - it's made up and gets confused when faced with historical fact(s). >>>>And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man >>>>himself . G-d that is. >>> >>>Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria. >> >> >> Anti-God hysteria. The burden of proof is on the believers - not on >> the non-believers. Now prove to us all that there is a God. Hint - >> Kant couldn't and you can't. > >God needs no proof but since you insist: your existence is proof enough. God is a belief made up by humans to try and explain what they don't understand and to use as a crutch in time of need. Don't confuse your faith with the physical world. It's inane, ignorant, and far from any truth. >>>>SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem >>>>http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm >>> >>>Absolute exploitative insanity. >> >> >> Excuse me - it's in the Bible and isn't everything in the Bible God's >> honest truth? > >To what in the Bible do you refer? If all you're going to do is >regurgitate garbage from that Jew hating web site you'll be engaging in >a conceptually irrelevant act. Just who are you talking to? Apparently not me as I've said nothing nor referenced anything which has to do with Judaism or its adherents. Try and stay on point. BTW - Judaism is much more on point than Xtianity. At least there's some real history attached to it. >> >>>>Also see: >>>>http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html >>> >>>Arab propaganda. >> >> >> Yeah, right. And the Holocaust was Jewish propaganda foisted off by >> the Rothschilds as truth. And the Inquisition was just a pop quiz. And >> the Crusades a cruise on Holland-America. And pogroms were cheerleader >> props. > >Denial suits you. Excuse me - denial of what? Or don't you understand sarcasm. Try hitting yourself upside the head and jumpstarting your brain. >>PS - you and the Muslims have the exact same God. > >Bull. There's more than one? Oh, I know what you're saying. Your God's better than their God. >>>>Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was >>>>a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long >>>>as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power >>>>without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church> >>>>So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never >>>>questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where >>>>it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's >>>>Christianity >>>>--- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically. >>> >>>Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people, >>>no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations. >> >> >> Of course - your point is? > >Read what you wrote above. I didn't write it, God boy. >>>>A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never >>>>tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another >>>>religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of >>>>a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in >>>>another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not >>>>successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might >>>>of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman, >>>>the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion >>>>demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand, >>>>because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus >>>>intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman. >>>>The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the >>>>conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a >>>>child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object >>>>of the love will be eaten up... >>> >>>You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers >>>in the atheist religion. >> >> >> Atheism is a religion? Beep - wrong. Nobody's out there signing up >> converts. > >Bull. Atheism evangelizes. Or have you no idea of your fundamentalist, >evangelical devotion to your own religion. Religion explicitly entails a belief in some higher being. The belief that this fairy tale is not real does not constitute any type of religious belief. Personally if I were to adhere to any religion, it would be centered around Astarte and natural phenomena. >>>> Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation. >>>> >>>>"If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a >>>>Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior." >>>> >>>>Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ, >>>>the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity. >>>>--- Albert Einstein >>>> >>>>". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not >>>>believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And >>>>if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such >>>>an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence." >>>>--- Bertrand Russell >>> >>>Russel the moron. >> >> >> Yup - Roy's the perfect ignorant Xtian - his mind's made up. Everyone >> who doesn't believe in his brand of Xtianity is a moron. This includes >> Russell, Kant, Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, and a cast of thousands. >> Pretty good company. If there ever was a Jesus, (there's no proof of >> his existence except for a footnote in an archaic text that refers to >> a Christos) he'd be much more at home with those folks than with a >> bunch of narrow-minded bigots. > >Typical atheist zealot's rant. You really feel that Jesus existed? I can understand many believing in God - please note belief and not fact. What I can't understand is belief in an nonexistent individual born of a virgin (made up 300 years after the fact), deemed divine (made up 300 years after the fact), and later used as an excuse to torture and kill those who didn't wish to follow. Yup - makes perfect sense. WB Yeats Quote
Guest Rev. Karl E. Taylor Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roy Jose Lorr wrote: | Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: | |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> Roy Jose Lorr wrote: |> |>> Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: |>> |>> |>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>>> Hash: SHA1 |>>> |>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>> Richard Anacker wrote: |>>>> |>>>> |>>>> |>>>>> Roy Jose Lorr , 01.20.2008: |>>>>> |>>>>> |>>>>> |>>>>> |>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'. |>>>>>>> |>>>>>>> |>>>>>>> In your indoctrinated mind. |>>>>>> |>>>>>> So you pray. |>>>>>> |>>>>>> There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. Lack of belief is |>>>>>> an impossibility. |>>>>> |>>>>> |>>>>> As I said |>>>>> In your indoctrinated mind. |>>>> |>>>> Describe something you 'lack' belief in. |>>>> |>>> |>>> Your intelligence. |>> |>> Dufuss, you just admitted knowledge of something you disbelieve. That |>> means you do not have a "lack" of knowledge of my intelligence. Of |>> course your disbelief in the matter is a crock but for the sake of this |>> argument that's neither here nor there. |>> |> |> Dingbat, I KNOW there is intelligence, I lack the belief in yours. |> |> Man, stupidity is your forte ain't it RoyBoy? | | Try to get it right dufuss or would that be asking to much of yourself? | No actual substance I see. Typical. This is why I lack belief that you have any intelligence. You just provide the objective evidence I needed to convince me that indeed, I lack belief in your intelligence. - -- There are none more ignorant and useless, than they that seek answers on their knees, with their eyes closed. ____________________________________________________________________ Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/ Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director ____________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHlNaGf+wl0F6+jvgRAu8lAJ4xJMdfzQm16NXkjbT70MXdsw90MgCdHEJK KprZJl3TgpBRdkODJirvAU8= =5Hwy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 wbyeats@ireland.com wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:36:53 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> > wrote: > > >>wbyeats@ireland.com wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Raymond wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Jan 19, 7:26?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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist >>>>>Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush >>>> >>>>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How >>>>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality. >>> >>> >>>"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of >>>the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am >>>fighting for the work of the Lord." >>> >>>"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a >>>fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by >>>a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned >>>men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a >>>sufferer but as a fighter." >>> >>>Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a >>>Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of >>>God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best. >> >>You make my point. Politics has people saying all sorts of untruths. As >>I said. > > > ....and all the good little Christians just went along. Says much more > about religion than politics. And there are a great many including > yourself who's love to see the two go hand in hand in the US. Sheephood is not restricted to a specific class. > > >>>>>Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no >>>>>troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders. >>>>>Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't >>>>>understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or >>>>>history book. >>>> >>>>Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a >>>>tutorial in reality. >>> >>> >>>So you're going to rewrite history to rationalize your ignorance? >>>Figures! >> >>Ignorance is taking necessarily biased accounts of history at face value. > > > Biased acount of what? History. Learn to read. But I do understand your mindset - it's made up > and gets confused when faced with historical fact(s). What is an "historical fact"? > > >>>>>And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man >>>>>himself . G-d that is. >>>> >>>>Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria. >>> >>> >>>Anti-God hysteria. The burden of proof is on the believers - not on >>>the non-believers. Now prove to us all that there is a God. Hint - >>>Kant couldn't and you can't. >> >>God needs no proof but since you insist: your existence is proof enough. > > > God is a belief made up by humans to try and explain what they don't > understand and to use as a crutch in time of need. Don't confuse your > faith with the physical world. It's inane, ignorant, and far from any > truth. Nice rant. You should give it from your pulpit. > > >>>>>SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem >>>>>http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm >>>> >>>>Absolute exploitative insanity. >>> >>> >>>Excuse me - it's in the Bible and isn't everything in the Bible God's >>>honest truth? >> >>To what in the Bible do you refer? If all you're going to do is >>regurgitate garbage from that Jew hating web site you'll be engaging in >>a conceptually irrelevant act. > > > Just who are you talking to? Apparently not me as I've said nothing > nor referenced anything which has to do with Judaism or its adherents. > Try and stay on point. BTW - Judaism is much more on point than > Xtianity. At least there's some real history attached to it. Yes, I'm talking to you, that should be obvious. Your use of a Jew hating website to promote your own religious ideology makes clear your agenda. I suggest you pay attention to what you write. > > >>>>>Also see: >>>>>http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html >>>> >>>>Arab propaganda. >>> >>> >>>Yeah, right. And the Holocaust was Jewish propaganda foisted off by >>>the Rothschilds as truth. And the Inquisition was just a pop quiz. And >>>the Crusades a cruise on Holland-America. And pogroms were cheerleader >>>props. >> >>Denial suits you. > > > Excuse me - denial of what? Or don't you understand sarcasm. Try > hitting yourself upside the head and jumpstarting your brain. Denial comes in the form of you thinking sarcasm hides the fact that you use arab propaganda to further your agenda? > > >>>PS - you and the Muslims have the exact same God. >> >>Bull. > > > There's more than one? Oh, I know what you're saying. Your God's > better than their God. No. I said they are not the same God. > > >>>>>Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was >>>>>a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long >>>>>as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power >>>>>without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church> >>>>>So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never >>>>>questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where >>>>>it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's >>>>>Christianity >>>>>--- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically. >>>> >>>>Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people, >>>>no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations. >>> >>> >>>Of course - your point is? >> >>Read what you wrote above. > > > I didn't write it, God boy. Ooh, ouch - 'God boy'. Antagonism suits you. > > >>>>>A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never >>>>>tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another >>>>>religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of >>>>>a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in >>>>>another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not >>>>>successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might >>>>>of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman, >>>>>the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion >>>>>demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand, >>>>>because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus >>>>>intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman. >>>>>The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the >>>>>conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a >>>>>child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object >>>>>of the love will be eaten up... >>>> >>>>You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers >>>>in the atheist religion. >>> >>> >>>Atheism is a religion? Beep - wrong. Nobody's out there signing up >>>converts. >> >>Bull. Atheism evangelizes. Or have you no idea of your fundamentalist, >>evangelical devotion to your own religion. > > > Religion explicitly entails a belief in some higher being. The belief > that this fairy tale is not real does not constitute any type of > religious belief. Personally if I were to adhere to any religion, it > would be centered around Astarte and natural phenomena. The operative word in the above is "I". The 'higher being' you believe in religiously is self. I suggest you digest what you write before posting. > > >>>>>Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation. >>>>> >>>>>"If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a >>>>>Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior." >>>>> >>>>>Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ, >>>>>the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity. >>>>>--- Albert Einstein >>>>> >>>>>". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not >>>>>believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And >>>>>if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such >>>>>an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence." >>>>>--- Bertrand Russell >>>> >>>>Russel the moron. >>> >>> >>>Yup - Roy's the perfect ignorant Xtian - his mind's made up. Everyone >>>who doesn't believe in his brand of Xtianity is a moron. This includes >>>Russell, Kant, Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, and a cast of thousands. >>>Pretty good company. If there ever was a Jesus, (there's no proof of >>>his existence except for a footnote in an archaic text that refers to >>>a Christos) he'd be much more at home with those folks than with a >>>bunch of narrow-minded bigots. >> >>Typical atheist zealot's rant. > > > You really feel that Jesus existed? I can understand many believing in > God - please note belief and not fact. What I can't understand is > belief in an nonexistent individual born of a virgin (made up 300 > years after the fact), deemed divine (made up 300 years after the > fact), and later used as an excuse to torture and kill those who > didn't wish to follow. Yup - makes perfect sense. I am not xian. Quote
Guest Rev. Karl E. Taylor Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roy Jose Lorr wrote: | Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: | |> Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste wrote: |> |>> The point of this post was about the validity of fearing and detesting |>> atheists. |>> |>> The only evidence offered by a few that atheists are the scourge of |>> humanity using fallacious reasoning. god created laws. Atheists |>> don't believe in god. Therefore atheists don't believe in laws. What |>> an absurd argument. There are a number of fallacies with this |>> argument. |>> |> There is another that they like to use a great deal of the time: |> |> "How can you have morals if you have no higher authority?" |> |> Silly I know, but, it's out there. | | Without a 'higher authority' morals are relative, based on personal | desires regarding individual situations, making them not morals but | expediencies. | Prove it. | |> > |> |>> God created laws: No proof is offered for this. Laws could have |>> evolved as civilizations evolved. |>> |>> Atheists don't believe in god: True enough. But the following |>> conclusion does not follow from the these two statements. |>> |> Actually, a small point of contention, that should read "gods". And |> atheist rejects the existence of all gods, not specific ones. | | I see, 'all' excludes 'specific'. BAGL | Yup, but you fools don't understand that. See yours is included in all. Got it junior? |> |> Rejection specific gods is the realm of the theists. |> > |> |>> Atheists don't believe in laws: does one have to believe in a god to |>> believe in a law? Why? Atheists believe in scientific laws so why |>> not other laws? |>> |> Yeah, I don't believe in the law. Which is why i spent a number of |> years enforcing the law.> Hmmm, go figure. | | Proving it doesn't take brains to enforce laws. | Oh, do try again, projectionist. BTW, how would you know? You're far to chicken shit to even try. |> > |> |>> Also, if someone believes in a god does that person also believe in |>> laws? And if that is true, then why do so many believers in a god |>> disobey laws? I guess a belief in laws doesn't prevent someone from |>> breaking laws? What's the point of bringing up a belief in god |>> leading to a belief in laws if those who believe in god, believe in |>> laws but don't obey those laws? |> |> > |> Problem is, the laws they believe in, that came from those gods, are |> some pretty sick laws. | | Perhaps you'd care to describe one of those sick laws? BAGL | Yeah, go read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Luke 14, Both Timothy's, especially the part about women and that silly little piece of toilet paper Revelations. When you have finished those, then maybe you'll understand. I doubt it but what the hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. - -- There are none more ignorant and useless, than they that seek answers on their knees, with their eyes closed. ____________________________________________________________________ Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/ Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director ____________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHlNeFf+wl0F6+jvgRAiufAJ9Abrbq6RDM9g9xlqx/R1IkJBZuRQCgjepz rlf5ktgarezQ/Ry98DnXvgw= =bAIZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Quote
Guest Rev. Karl E. Taylor Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roy Jose Lorr wrote: | Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: | |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> Roy Jose Lorr wrote: |> |>> Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: |>> |>> |>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>>> Hash: SHA1 |>>> |>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>> Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: |>>>> |>>>> |>>>> |>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>>>>> Hash: SHA1 |>>>>> |>>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote: |>>>>> |>>>>> |>>>>> |>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote: |>>>>>> |>>>>>> |>>>>>> |>>>>>> |>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:21:45 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his |>>>>>>> jaw to |>>>>>>> eat his own waste <goofindoo@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'. |>>>>>> |>>>>> |>>>>> Care to try and prove that one? |>>>>> |>>>>> Probably not. You never do. |>>>> |>>>> My mistake, I thought this was a philosophy group. |>>>> |>>>> Dufuss, there are only two choices: belief and disbelief... there |>>>> is no |>>>> such thing as 'lack' of belief after the fact. |>>>> |>>> |>>> You want it to be in the philosophy group, fine. |>>> |>>> But I don't read philosophy groups. My news server does not carry |>>> philosophy groups. And I don't answer to you for your failures to |>>> understand how the Internet works. |>>> |>>> You don't want my response, okay. Don't post to alt.atheism. |>>> |>>> Is that simple enough for ya, or do you need someone to hold your hand |>>> while you trim group names? |>> |>> Keep whining and puling, it suits you. |>> |> |> More of the trademarked RoyBoy projection. |> |> I see you still can't actually deal with the issues posted. Typical. |> |> BTW junior, I lack belief that you have any intelligence at all. |> |> See, you can lack belief in something. Take your stupid argument and |> stuff it up your ass. | | Slither off, dufuss. | No. Put that in pipe and smoke it. - -- There are none more ignorant and useless, than they that seek answers on their knees, with their eyes closed. ____________________________________________________________________ Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/ Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director ____________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFHlNeyf+wl0F6+jvgRAoahAJjtFX+Bfj535ABqpMpV0pUftEVCAKCmWue/ z4x91/OsGTNZjz9SZhJ2nQ== =6WNd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Quote
Guest Rev. Karl E. Taylor Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roy Jose Lorr wrote: | Free Lunch wrote: | |> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:33:10 -0800, in alt.atheism Roy Jose Lorr |> <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in |> <aI6dnRB_GIytJgnanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>: |> |>> Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: |>> |>> |>>> Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>> The point of this post was about the validity of fearing and detesting |>>>> atheists. |>>>> |>>>> The only evidence offered by a few that atheists are the scourge of |>>>> humanity using fallacious reasoning. god created laws. Atheists |>>>> don't believe in god. Therefore atheists don't believe in laws. What |>>>> an absurd argument. There are a number of fallacies with this |>>>> argument. |>>>> |>>> |>>> There is another that they like to use a great deal of the time: |>>> |>>> "How can you have morals if you have no higher authority?" |>>> |>>> Silly I know, but, it's out there. |>> |>> Without a 'higher authority' morals are relative, based on personal |>> desires regarding individual situations, making them not morals but |>> expediencies. |> |> |> Morals are always relative. | | Hardly. | | Those who claim to have a higher authority |> just attribute the moral code they want to that authority. | | Those wo do that are no different than those who believe self is the | higher authority. | |> |> |>>>> God created laws: No proof is offered for this. Laws could have |>>>> evolved as civilizations evolved. |>>>> |>>>> Atheists don't believe in god: True enough. But the following |>>>> conclusion does not follow from the these two statements. |>>>> |>>> |>>> Actually, a small point of contention, that should read "gods". And |>>> atheist rejects the existence of all gods, not specific ones. |>> |>> I see, 'all' excludes 'specific'. BAGL |> |> |> All is a more general term, and more accurate in this case. Your |> quibbling doesn't help you at all. | | Who is doing the 'quibbling? BAGL | |> |> |>>> Rejection specific gods is the realm of the theists. |>>> > |>>> |>>>> Atheists don't believe in laws: does one have to believe in a god to |>>>> believe in a law? Why? Atheists believe in scientific laws so why |>>>> not other laws? |>>>> |>>> |>>> Yeah, I don't believe in the law. Which is why i spent a number of |>>> years enforcing the law.> Hmmm, go figure. |>> |>> Proving it doesn't take brains to enforce laws. |>> |>> |>>> > |>>> |>>>> Also, if someone believes in a god does that person also believe in |>>>> laws? And if that is true, then why do so many believers in a god |>>>> disobey laws? I guess a belief in laws doesn't prevent someone from |>>>> breaking laws? What's the point of bringing up a belief in god |>>>> leading to a belief in laws if those who believe in god, believe in |>>>> laws but don't obey those laws? |>>> |>>> > |>>> Problem is, the laws they believe in, that came from those gods, are |>>> some pretty sick laws. |>> |>> Perhaps you'd care to describe one of those sick laws? BAGL |> |> |> How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than |> chattel? | | Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. | Go read your bible and educate yourself, liar. - -- There are none more ignorant and useless, than they that seek answers on their knees, with their eyes closed. ____________________________________________________________________ Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/ Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director ____________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHlNfcf+wl0F6+jvgRApj1AJ96/9hmRkrDB/W9dLugmrvOHgnUQgCeM0d4 5B6spsTFE+szwDdEEm9mHXI= =OhOS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <E_-dnSaqyvJTKQnanZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> 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. It beats seeing idiot Lorr stroking himself in public, which he does much too often and too publicly Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <X72dndp1YLUSKAnanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > Life is a red herring, eh? Speaking of your own life, Lorr? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <E7-dnV8nzoHoKgnanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote: > > > Dingbat, I KNOW there is intelligence, I lack the belief in yours. > > > > Man, stupidity is your forte ain't it RoyBoy? > > Try to get it right dufuss or would that be asking to much of yourself? He has it right, but Royboy Lorr is too egocentric to admit it. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <E7-dnV4nzoFSKgnanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > SteveL wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:56:36 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > > > > >>Richard Anacker wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Roy Jose Lorr , 01.20.2008: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'. > >>> > >>> > >>>In your indoctrinated mind. > >> > >>So you pray. > >> > >>There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. Lack of belief is an > >>impossibility. > > > > > > Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. > > Which 'middle' might that be? The immense region between the extremities of Lorr's unfounded belief and strong atheists' equally unfounded counterbelief. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <aI6dnRB_GIytJgnanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > > There is another that they like to use a great deal of the time: > > > > "How can you have morals if you have no higher authority?" > > > > Silly I know, but, it's out there. > > Without a 'higher authority' morals are relative, based on personal > desires regarding individual situations, making them not morals but > expediencies. There is no guarantee that any such higher authority, even if it were proven to exist, would have the welfare of humanity at heart. So that such an alleged "morality" might secretly support the destruction of humanity. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <aI6dnRN_GIwcJgnanZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > >>Keep whining and puling, it suits you. > >> > > > > More of the trademarked RoyBoy projection. > > > > I see you still can't actually deal with the issues posted. Typical. > > > > BTW junior, I lack belief that you have any intelligence at all. > > > > See, you can lack belief in something. Take your stupid argument and > > stuff it up your ass. > > Slither off, dufuss. Whenever RoyBoy gets in over his head, he descends to such anti-logical retorts. And if one were to bother to tally them, one would undoubtedly find that most of his postings are of that inept nature. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <JqudnXpjMpYjXwnanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: > > >>>Problem is, the laws they believe in, that came from those gods, are > >>>some pretty sick laws. > >> > >>Perhaps you'd care to describe one of those sick laws? BAGL > > > > > > How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than > > chattel? > > Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. The Pentateuch is full of them. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In article <UqKdnfecitliSwnanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation. > >>>>> > >>>>>"If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a > >>>>>Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior." > >>>>> > >>>>>Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ, > >>>>>the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity. > >>>>>--- Albert Einstein > >>>>> > >>>>>". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not > >>>>>believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And > >>>>>if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such > >>>>>an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence." > >>>>>--- Bertrand Russell > >>>> > >>>>Russel the moron. Russell still being incredibly smarter than Lorr ever hoped to be makes Lorr sub-imbecilic by comparison. > >>> > >>> > >>>Yup - Roy's the perfect ignorant Xtian - his mind's made up. Roy will say he is not a Xtian, and that may well be so, but he IS of the type that Eric Hoffer calls a True Believer, even if it is not the Xtian belief. > I am not xian. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.