Guest Free Lunch Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:05:24 -0800, in alt.atheism Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in <JqudnXpjMpYjXwnanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com>: >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. Show me how the alternative can exist. > 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. So, you do agree that those who claim that "God" is responsible are making it up and attributing their own personal moral code to God. >>>>>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 You. .... >> How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than >> chattel? > >Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. I thought you knew the Bible. Apparently I was mistaken. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Free Lunch wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:05:24 -0800, in alt.atheism > Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in > <JqudnXpjMpYjXwnanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com>: > >>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. > > > Show me how the alternative can exist. The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. > > >> 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. > > > So, you do agree that those who claim that "God" is responsible are > making it up and attributing their own personal moral code to God. God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. > > >>>>>>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 > > > You. Sure. > > ... > > >>>How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than >>>chattel? >> >>Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. > > > I thought you knew the Bible. Apparently I was mistaken. Dodge. Answer the question. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0800, in alt.atheism Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in <6IadndlG-_D_zQjanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com>: >Free Lunch wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:05:24 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in >> <JqudnXpjMpYjXwnanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com>: >> >>>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>: .... >>>>>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. >> >> Show me how the alternative can exist. > >The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is >morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. How is that absolute? The relativism comes in your decision about which bucket to put actions into. There is no absolute authority on what fits where. >>> 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. >> >> So, you do agree that those who claim that "God" is responsible are >> making it up and attributing their own personal moral code to God. > >God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is >dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. Since there is no evidence that God exists, you cannot make any reliable assertions about what that God is supposed to have done. First you have to show that God exists, then you have to show that God is actually responsible for what you claim. So far, you have done neither. .... >>>>How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than >>>>chattel? >>> >>>Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. >> >> I thought you knew the Bible. Apparently I was mistaken. > >Dodge. Answer the question. 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. Quote
Guest Karl Johanson Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 "Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message news:d8Wdne3SCb-l3AnanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com... > Karl Johanson wrote: > >> "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. >> >> >> If you wish to believe a superstitious cause for the universe, you >> have an infinite number of choices. All are untestable and about >> equally likely. There might be one god, there might 23 gods, there >> might be 42 gods, etc. It's as likely that Batman created the >> universe as that Elohim did. Close to 1 in infinity. The Bible >> doesn't prove Elohim exists anymore than that comic books prove that >> Batman is the supreme being. >> >> I was showing the implications of your argument. > > All you've shown is an abundance of atheist idiocy. You're an atheist, with regard to the notion that batman is a deity. Karl Johanson Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Karl Johanson wrote: > "Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:d8Wdne3SCb-l3AnanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com... > >>Karl Johanson wrote: >> >> >>>"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. >>> >>> >>>If you wish to believe a superstitious cause for the universe, you >>>have an infinite number of choices. All are untestable and about >>>equally likely. There might be one god, there might 23 gods, there >>>might be 42 gods, etc. It's as likely that Batman created the >>>universe as that Elohim did. Close to 1 in infinity. The Bible >>>doesn't prove Elohim exists anymore than that comic books prove that >>>Batman is the supreme being. >>> >>>I was showing the implications of your argument. >> >>All you've shown is an abundance of atheist idiocy. > > > You're an atheist, with regard to the notion that batman is a deity. Sure. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Free Lunch wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0800, in alt.atheism > Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in > <6IadndlG-_D_zQjanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com>: > >>Free Lunch wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:05:24 -0800, in alt.atheism >>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in >>><JqudnXpjMpYjXwnanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com>: >>> >>> >>>>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>: > > ... > > >>>>>>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. >>> >>>Show me how the alternative can exist. >> >>The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is >>morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. > > > How is that absolute? The relativism comes in your decision about which > bucket to put actions into. There is no absolute authority on what fits > where. I don't have that problem. My moral guide is Absolute, not subject to relativistic manipulation. > > >>>>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. >>> >>>So, you do agree that those who claim that "God" is responsible are >>>making it up and attributing their own personal moral code to God. >> >>God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is >>dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. > > > Since there is no evidence that God exists, you cannot make any reliable > assertions about what that God is supposed to have done. First you have > to show that God exists, then you have to show that God is actually > responsible for what you claim. So far, you have done neither. Your existence is proof that God exists. Since He therefore exists then His word is truth. God's word exists in the book He tells us He authored: the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy). > > ... > > >>>>>How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than >>>>>chattel? >>>> >>>>Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. >>> >>>I thought you knew the Bible. Apparently I was mistaken. >> >>Dodge. Answer the question. > > > 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. Quote
Guest Richard Anacker Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Roy Jose Lorr , 01.22.2008: > God gave an Absolute Morality. which gawd? Before you give evidence to this statement, you must give evidence to this "God" you are allways talking about. greets richie X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.philosophy -- Lieblingsvideos auf youtube: 29) Jethro Tull - Too old to rock & roll... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGWG_gCRw20&feature=related Quote
Guest Richard Anacker Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Roy Jose Lorr , 01.22.2008: > My moral guide is Absolute, not subject to > relativistic manipulation. Ind this moral guide is what tells you to try to indoctrinate and insist other people that do not agree with your personal faith? What a fucking guide is that? I bet, there are better ones in each bookshop. greets richie X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.philosophy -- Love is the answer, but while you wait for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.. -Woody Allen Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 In article <6IadndlG-_D_zQjanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:05:24 -0800, in alt.atheism > > Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in > > <JqudnXpjMpYjXwnanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com>: > > > >>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. > > > > > > Show me how the alternative can exist. > > The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is > morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. > > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > So, you do agree that those who claim that "God" is responsible are > > making it up and attributing their own personal moral code to God. > > God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is > dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. > > > > > > >>>>>>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 > > > > > > You. > > Sure. > > > > > ... > > > > > >>>How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than > >>>chattel? > >> > >>Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. > > > > > > I thought you knew the Bible. Apparently I was mistaken. > > Dodge. Answer the question. Since Lorr never answers questions, particularly those which point out his foolishness, he is hardly in a position to demand it of others. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 In article <RPCdnTR9vKBeHQjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > > You're an atheist, with regard to the notion that batman is a deity. > > Sure. Batman is as rational deity as any other, so why reject him? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 In article <KbWdnQ30CtwnHgjanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0800, in alt.atheism > > Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in > > <6IadndlG-_D_zQjanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com>: > > > >>Free Lunch wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:05:24 -0800, in alt.atheism > >>>Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in > >>><JqudnXpjMpYjXwnanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com>: > >>> > >>> > >>>>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>: > > > > ... > > > > > >>>>>>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. > >>> > >>>Show me how the alternative can exist. > >> > >>The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is > >>morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. > > > > > > How is that absolute? The relativism comes in your decision about which > > bucket to put actions into. There is no absolute authority on what fits > > where. > > I don't have that problem. My moral guide is Absolute, not subject to > relativistic manipulation. > > > > > > >>>>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. > >>> > >>>So, you do agree that those who claim that "God" is responsible are > >>>making it up and attributing their own personal moral code to God. > >> > >>God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is > >>dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. > > > > > > Since there is no evidence that God exists, you cannot make any reliable > > assertions about what that God is supposed to have done. First you have > > to show that God exists, then you have to show that God is actually > > responsible for what you claim. So far, you have done neither. > > Your existence is proof that God exists. Since He therefore exists then > His word is truth. God's word exists in the book He tells us He > authored: the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy). > > > > > ... > > > > > >>>>>How about the laws about slavery and treating women as little more than > >>>>>chattel? > >>>> > >>>>Cite these phantom "laws", for discussion. > >>> > >>>I thought you knew the Bible. Apparently I was mistaken. > >> > >>Dodge. Answer the question. > > > > > > 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. It still supports slavery, which is an evil. Quote
Guest Richard Anacker Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Virgil , 01.22.2008: > It still supports slavery, which is an evil. Obviously not for "good Christs" greets richie X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.philosophy -- Lieblingsvideos auf youtube: 28) Jethro Tull - Broadsword http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5Ghc5OwKg Quote
Guest Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat h Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 On Jan 21, 9:48 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote: > I don't have that problem. My moral guide is Absolute, not subject to > relativistic manipulation. > Your existence is proof that God exists. Since He therefore exists then > His word is truth. God's word exists in the book He tells us He > authored: the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy). First you must prove that a god exist and that this god is the absolute authority. Your proof of a god's existence is weak, at best. Using your criteria for proof, I could say that Purple Unicorn exist because you exist. One does not prove the other. A person's existences can result from other events. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that your weak argument for a god's existence is sound. You must then prove that this god is the absolute authority. You must also prove that this god is a moral being and neither insane nor immoral. An absolute authority does not necessarily mean moral or sane. Quote
Guest les_on_usenet Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: >The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is >morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. Ridiculous >God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is >dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. Asserted Nonesense -- Les Hellawell Greetings from YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Richard Anacker wrote: > Roy Jose Lorr , 01.22.2008: > > >>My moral guide is Absolute, not subject to >>relativistic manipulation. > > > Ind this moral guide is what tells you to try to indoctrinate and > insist other people that do not agree with your personal faith? It tells me the opposite. > > What a fucking guide is that? I bet, there are better ones in each > bookshop. Find one. Name one. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste wrote: > On Jan 21, 9:48 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>I don't have that problem. My moral guide is Absolute, not subject to >>relativistic manipulation. > > >>Your existence is proof that God exists. Since He therefore exists then >>His word is truth. God's word exists in the book He tells us He >>authored: the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy). > > > > First you must prove that a god exist and that this god is the > absolute authority. God needs no proof. Still, the proof is your existence. > > Your proof of a god's existence is weak, at best. Using your criteria > for proof, I could say that Purple Unicorn exist because you exist. > One does not prove the other. A person's existences can result from > other events. Existence cannot come from nothing, to nothing, for nothing. Existence cannot manufacture itself. > > For the sake of argument, let's pretend that your weak argument for a > god's existence is sound. You must then prove that this god is the > absolute authority. You must also prove that this god is a moral > being and neither insane nor immoral. An absolute authority does not > necessarily mean moral or sane. I do not know more of God than what God says of Himself. Whatever God's attributes, the Laws He set for us, physical and moral, are those that perfectly fit dualistic existence in a binary universe. Without them all is moot. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 les_on_usenet wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> > wrote: > > > >>The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is >>morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. > > > Ridiculous So you pray. > > > >>God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is >>dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. > > > Asserted Nonesense So you pray. Quote
Guest les_on_usenet Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:02:06 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: >les_on_usenet wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is >>>morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. >> >> >> Ridiculous > >So you pray. A fools game. >>>God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is >>>dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. >> >> >> Asserted Nonesense > >So you pray. desperation noted. -- Les Hellawell Greetings from YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County Quote
Guest wbyeats@ireland.com Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:31:49 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>"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. Open wide and say baaaa. >>>>>>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. Now tell us all exactly which history you're referring to? Crusades, Inquisition, pogroms, or the Holocaust. All of which occurred as a result of religion or hatred against another religion. Refute it. > But I do understand your mindset - it's made up >> and gets confused when faced with historical fact(s). > >What is an "historical fact"? I guess you really are ignorant as a log. But let me give you one anyway. In the late 1400's in Spain the monarchs got together with the church to burn and torture 'heretics' who either would not accept Christ or would not confess their 'sins'. >>>>>>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. Not a rant Giles God-boy. That reference just went right over your tiny brain. >>>>>>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. Wasn't me Bozo - try looking before you leap to conclusions. >>>>>>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? Exactly what Arab propaganda is that. I didn't reference any site. >> >>>>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. Okay - so now there's more than one. >>>>>>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. Take a few Zantac - might help with your (reading) digestion. What I said does not imply any belief in 'self'. Nice try God-boy. >>>>>>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. That might be true(not) but you are the real thing - a genuine idiot. WB Yeats Quote
Guest Richard Anacker Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Roy Jose Lorr , 01.22.2008: >> Ind this moral guide is what tells you to try to indoctrinate and >> insist other people that do not agree with your personal faith? > > It tells me the opposite. So you are imoral? greets richie X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.philosophy -- Lieblingsvideos auf youtube: 29) Jethro Tull - Too old to rock & roll... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGWG_gCRw20&feature=related Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 wbyeats@ireland.com wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:31:49 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> > wrote: > > >>>>>"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. > > > Open wide and say baaaa. You in heat? > > >>>>>>>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. > > > Now tell us all exactly which history you're referring to? Crusades, > Inquisition, pogroms, or the Holocaust. All of which occurred as a > result of religion or hatred against another religion. Refute it. Politics. > > >> But I do understand your mindset - it's made up >> >>>and gets confused when faced with historical fact(s). >> >>What is an "historical fact"? > > > I guess you really are ignorant as a log. But let me give you one > anyway. In the late 1400's in Spain the monarchs got together with the > church to burn and torture 'heretics' who either would not accept > Christ or would not confess their 'sins'. Answer the question. > > >>>>>>>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. > > > Not a rant Giles God-boy. That reference just went right over your > tiny brain. Ooh, u soo smaaht. > > >>>>>>>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. > > > Wasn't me Bozo - try looking before you leap to conclusions. You are a conclusion that needs leaping upon. > > >>>>>>>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? > > > Exactly what Arab propaganda is that. I didn't reference any site. Is that so? I see you don't care much for 'historical facts'. Embarrassing, isn't it? BAGL > > >>>>>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. > > > Okay - so now there's more than one. There is a huge difference between God and gods. > > >>>>>>>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. > > > Take a few Zantac - might help with your (reading) digestion. What I > said does not imply any belief in 'self'. Nice try God-boy. Denial suits you. > > >>>>>>>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. > > > That might be true(not) but you are the real thing - a genuine idiot. Again: 'historical facts' are meaningless to you. Marxist dialectics ring a bell? Is your real name Billary? Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 les_on_usenet wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:02:06 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> > wrote: > > >>les_on_usenet wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>The formula is simplicity itself: what challenges human base desire is >>>>morally right - what panders to human base desire is morally wrong. >>> >>> >>>Ridiculous >> >>So you pray. > > > A fools game. If you think so, why do you play it? > > > >>>>God gave an Absolute Morality. Whether or not we abide by it is >>>>dependant on another of God's gifts to us: free will. >>> >>> >>>Asserted Nonesense >> >>So you pray. > > > desperation noted. Projection noted. Quote
Guest Roy Jose Lorr Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Hatter wrote: > 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. 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.