Guest Michael Gray Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:09:48 -0700, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: - Refer: <1hvfj05.bxcxsmlhkfbN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com> >rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then. >> > >> > > > > > "You people"? >> > >> > > > > > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be >> > > > > > tellin' us that we don't know which way is straight, so that >> > > > > > must be da truth! Without your helps, I don't know what we all >> > > > > > would do! We be mighty thankful for that, sah! >> > >> > > > > You seem to like making fun of minorities. >> > >> > > > As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people") >> > > > I AM a minority... >> > >> > > Well, I don't really think so. >> > >> > You don't think atheists are a minority? ?What do you think the >> > percentage of atheists is in the population?- Hide quoted text - >> > >> >> Well, what would it matter since atheists control the judicial system >> of the United States, which they have made the strongest branch of >> government? > >I'm guessing you're a Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter kind of >guy... Am I right? No. They once had brains. -- Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>> >>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>> >>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>> >>>> >>> Wonderful. >>> >>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >> >> Ok, and do the same for me. >> >> Here is one that I think I see: >> >> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >> belief in what are called gods". >> >> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >> that it does not exist. >> >> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >> > >I don't think some so-called atheists here >even know what they are doing. >They are just hate-filled morons. Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled morons in that group. >I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >than identifying yourself with reference to theism. I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this newsgroup (alt.atheism). Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not believe in gods? Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >Almost a fighting word. Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that is too much to ask, this being usenet. >Most people here have some interest in faith. >If you cannot talk about faith >without resorting to abusive language, >you probably don't belong to this forum. I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >Do you have faith in reason? Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? Quote
Guest stumper Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> > wrote: > >> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>> >>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>> >>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Wonderful. >>>> >>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>> >>> Here is one that I think I see: >>> >>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>> belief in what are called gods". >>> >>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>> that it does not exist. >>> >>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>> >> I don't think some so-called atheists here >> even know what they are doing. >> They are just hate-filled morons. > > Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that > would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled > morons in that group. > >> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. > > I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this > newsgroup (alt.atheism). > > Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not > believe in gods? > > Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I > "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians > believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god > is often expected to be an underlying assumption. > >> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >> Almost a fighting word. > > Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who > feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like > fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... > > I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to > look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. > > If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that > they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that > is too much to ask, this being usenet. > >> Most people here have some interest in faith. >> If you cannot talk about faith >> without resorting to abusive language, >> you probably don't belong to this forum. > > I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? > >> Do you have faith in reason? > > Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? > Good for you. Such attitude is all I'm asking for here at alt.atheism. I'm not interested in controlling what people think or how they think, but just how they behave here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism Are you a physicalist? -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Mark K. Bilbo Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:49:18 -0400, stumper wrote: > Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Wonderful. >>>>> >>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>> >>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>> >>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>> >>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>> that it does not exist. >>>> >>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>> >>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>> even know what they are doing. >>> They are just hate-filled morons. >> >> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >> morons in that group. >> >>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >> >> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >> >> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >> believe in gods? >> >> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >> >>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>> Almost a fighting word. >> >> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >> >> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >> >> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >> >>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>> If you cannot talk about faith >>> without resorting to abusive language, >>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >> >> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >> >>> Do you have faith in reason? >> >> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >> > > Good for you. > Such attitude is all I'm asking for > here at alt.atheism. > > I'm not interested in controlling > what people think or how they think, > but just how they behave here. Who died and left you moderator? -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message news:pPydnZvgloRnZmLYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net... > > Do you have faith in reason? > Only to the extent that love is subject to reason, for our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ propitiating our sins, not His, on the cross of Calvary. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message news:q6adnXXgzZmHvJ3bnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@ptd.net... > Pastor Frank wrote: >> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>> >>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is >>>> going to yank your number. >>> >>> Oh shut up Frank. >>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >> >> Don't want us to rat on you? And cause your precious atheist number >> to be yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! > > Most of the atheist hate messages in this forum > are generated by the following four posters. > Mark K. Bilbo > tirebiter > Michael Gray > The Chief Instigator > If you simply filter them out, > you will see a much more peaceful place. > Try it, please. > ~Stumper > There are a lot more, Blowjob for one, and Bill, Bob, Shellshock etc. etc. But what use is being one of Satan's minions and not trying do a good job for your boss to earn Brownie points? To get Christians to "shut up" is the sole aim of all of them, for they want Jesus Christ to be an obscure if not forgotten historical entity. But we Christians know, that were the Son of God not uplifted even the stones would cry out immediately. (Lk:19:40). -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message news:pan.2007.03.20.18.11.32.694895@com.mkbilbo... > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:10:09 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>> >>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is >>>> going to yank your number. >>> >>> Oh shut up Frank. >>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >> >> Don't want us to rat on you and cause your precious atheist number to >> be >> yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! > > Flake, you are such an idiot. Why on earth would Mickey delist me? Do > explain that one. > (I could use the laugh) > Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 > EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion > Dildo, "you are such a moron". How about you advancing reality as some sort of ideal, worthy of worship? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message news:pan.2007.03.20.18.12.03.951990@com.mkbilbo... > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:00:05 -0400, stumper wrote: >> Pastor Frank wrote: >>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is >>>>> going to yank your number. >>>> >>>> Oh shut up Frank. >>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >>> >>> Don't want us to rat on you and cause your precious atheist number >>> to be >>> yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! >> >> Most of the atheist hate messages in this forum >> are generated by the following four posters. >> Mark K. Bilbo >> tirebiter >> Michael Gray >> The Chief Instigator >> If you simply filter them out, >> you will see a much more peaceful place. >> Try it, please. > > <snork> > Okay so that's the third known Net kook you've sided with. > (The company you keep) > Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 > EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion > We all know you think we are "net Kooks" and you are not, on account of your atheism. LOL But the funny part is, that you think "subverting the language" will cause everyone to believe you. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1174428245.470009.106270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Pastor Frank wrote: >> "Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message >> news:m8eqv2ldad97rn6q3d762ctovvktgver67@4ax.com... >> > Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message >> >>> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in alt.atheism >> >>>> Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message >> >>>>> rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism >> > >> >>>>>> You don't have to figure it out. The example of how to pray was >> >>>>>> given >> >>>>>> by Jesus Christ. It starts, Our Father Which art in Heaven. >> > >> >>>>> Where's heaven? Outer space? >> > >> >>>> Why would you ask such a dumb question for which the answer is right >> >>>> there in the NT Bible? See below. "outer space" indeed. that only >> >>>> goes >> >>>> to >> >>>> confirm that the god of atheist definition is some comic book >> >>>> character, >> >>>> a la Galacticus the devourer of worlds, or Odin of Valhalla, all of >> >>>> which >> >>>> OBVIOUSLY don't exist. >> > >> >>>> Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, >> >>>> when >> >>>> the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The >> >>>> kingdom >> >>>> of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! >> >>>> or, lo >> >>>> there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU." >> > >> >>> The Bible says Jesus ascended up into heaven, not inside people's >> >>> bodies. He's supposed to be sitting at the right hand of his father >> >>> up in heaven, on a throne. For every verse you come up with which >> >>> says heaven is inside people's bodies, I can come up with one which >> >>> says it's up in the sky, among the stars. >> > >> >> Jesus resurrected in everyone's heart and mind, only atheists make an >> >> effort to ignore Him. Therefore the entire process takes place within >> >> you, >> >> and not up thar in the sky. >> > >> > I thought the Bible says he resurrected as a real person and walked >> > around town to show people he wasn't really dead. >> > >> What kind of God incarnate would Jesus be if He couldn't do both, >> resurrect physically as a "real person", as well as spiritually in every >> heart and mind? > > Good question; how about "an imaginary god"? > How would you tell an imaginary God from a real one? I bet your "REAL" God would show up as a giant talking face in the sky telling the world: "I am god, and I am telling you all to shape up or I'm going to fry your ass in hell for all eternity. Now git!!!!" ROFL Our most holy and perfect God showed up as a man called Jesus Christ, and He let Himself be crucified! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:51:00 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote: - Refer: <pan.2007.03.24.20.50.59.950557@com.mkbilbo> >On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:49:18 -0400, stumper wrote: : >> I'm not interested in controlling >> what people think or how they think, >> but just how they behave here. > >Who died and left you moderator? When we atheists killed his "god", his ego took over the vacancy. -- Quote
Guest Mark K. Bilbo Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:24:34 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: > "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message > news:pan.2007.03.20.18.11.32.694895@com.mkbilbo... >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:10:09 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is >>>>> going to yank your number. >>>> >>>> Oh shut up Frank. >>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >>> >>> Don't want us to rat on you and cause your precious atheist number to >>> be >>> yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! >> >> Flake, you are such an idiot. Why on earth would Mickey delist me? Do >> explain that one. >> (I could use the laugh) >> > Dildo, "you are such a moron". How about you advancing reality as some > sort of ideal, worthy of worship? I see, so you admit you were totally full of shit about my a.a. number being "yanked"? -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken Quote
Guest Mark K. Bilbo Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:15:34 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: > "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message > news:q6adnXXgzZmHvJ3bnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@ptd.net... >> Pastor Frank wrote: >>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is >>>>> going to yank your number. >>>> >>>> Oh shut up Frank. >>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >>> >>> Don't want us to rat on you? And cause your precious atheist number >>> to be yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! >> >> Most of the atheist hate messages in this forum >> are generated by the following four posters. >> Mark K. Bilbo >> tirebiter >> Michael Gray >> The Chief Instigator >> If you simply filter them out, >> you will see a much more peaceful place. >> Try it, please. >> ~Stumper >> > There are a lot more, Blowjob for one, and Bill, Bob, Shellshock etc. > etc. But what use is being one of Satan's minions and not trying do a good > job for your boss to earn Brownie points? To get Christians to "shut up" is > the sole aim of all of them No, it's mostly to get you to shut up. As in, Mister Frank the Hypocrite always whines about cross-posting while cross-posting with abandon... -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken Quote
Guest Mark K. Bilbo Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:31:25 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: > "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message > news:pan.2007.03.20.18.12.03.951990@com.mkbilbo... >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:00:05 -0400, stumper wrote: >>> Pastor Frank wrote: >>>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is >>>>>> going to yank your number. >>>>> >>>>> Oh shut up Frank. >>>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>>>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >>>> >>>> Don't want us to rat on you and cause your precious atheist number >>>> to be >>>> yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! >>> >>> Most of the atheist hate messages in this forum >>> are generated by the following four posters. >>> Mark K. Bilbo >>> tirebiter >>> Michael Gray >>> The Chief Instigator >>> If you simply filter them out, >>> you will see a much more peaceful place. >>> Try it, please. >> >> <snork> >> Okay so that's the third known Net kook you've sided with. >> (The company you keep) >> > We all know you think we are "net Kooks" and you are not, on account of > your atheism. LOL But the funny part is, that you think "subverting the > language" will cause everyone to believe you. Yeah. How many accounts have you lost for trolling now? -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken Quote
Guest Sam Washington Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message news:pan.2007.03.25.01.34.18.205214@com.mkbilbo... > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:24:34 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: > > > "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message > > news:pan.2007.03.20.18.11.32.694895@com.mkbilbo... > >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:10:09 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: > >>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message > >>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... > >>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is > >>>>> going to yank your number. > >>>> > >>>> Oh shut up Frank. > >>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 > >>>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion > >>> > >>> Don't want us to rat on you and cause your precious atheist number to > >>> be > >>> yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! > >> > >> Flake, you are such an idiot. Why on earth would Mickey delist me? Do > >> explain that one. > >> (I could use the laugh) > >> > > Dildo, "you are such a moron". How about you advancing reality as some > > sort of ideal, worthy of worship? > > I see, so you admit you were totally full of shit about my a.a. number > being "yanked"? Im new to this program. My name is Sam Washington. I be the caretaker for some white folks who lives in this uppity community and has this place where they goes to play and swim and talk. You all please forgive me because Im not to much up on this kind of thing fussing about God. Because I needs no outside evidence of my God. I knows he lives. I knows it in my heart. But I got a problem its about my job. They hired a mexican and it scares me. I have this job for 15 years now they hire this man because he will work cheeper I hope God will let me keep my job, but if he closes one door he will open another. . The boss say I got nothing to worry because the man is going to be my helper. But Im getting old I be 64 on my birthday and cant do work like I use to. I have faith in God so Im not worried about it. He will help me no matter what. Sam > -- > Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 > EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion > ------------------------------------------------------------ > "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace > alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing > it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." > - H. L. Mencken > Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1174487781.223185.183200@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Pastor Frank wrote: >> "Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message >> news:2hfqv2tpe6gkm78mgguopvi8vv37onfmqk@4ax.com... >> > Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message >> > >> >>> Jesus is gonna be like those who kept the ovens at the Nazi >> >>> concentration camps burning. Quite a nice loving god he's got there, >> >>> don't you think? >> > >> >> God does His loving through loving and caring people. >> > >> > Like through priests who love little choir boys? >> > >> Typical atheist again, to confuse love with lust. But then to think, >> if >> not also talk like that is atheist doctrine, isn't it? > > Why, no, in fact it isn't. You're lying again. Is lying an > expression of love? > I see you arguing, that priests "love little choir boys" not lust for them. Is that what you want to say? Or are you just chanting off topic atheist mantras again about lies and lying, ...which other do, but not you? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest stumper Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message > news:pPydnZvgloRnZmLYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net... >> Do you have faith in reason? >> > Only to the extent that love is subject to reason, for our Christian > "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ > propitiating our sins, not His, on the cross of Calvary. > You can either try to make that understandable to all or simple show what it means to all here. -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest stumper Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message > news:q6adnXXgzZmHvJ3bnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@ptd.net... >> Pastor Frank wrote: >>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is >>>>> going to yank your number. >>>> Oh shut up Frank. >>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >>> Don't want us to rat on you? And cause your precious atheist number >>> to be yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! >> Most of the atheist hate messages in this forum >> are generated by the following four posters. >> Mark K. Bilbo >> tirebiter >> Michael Gray >> The Chief Instigator >> If you simply filter them out, >> you will see a much more peaceful place. >> Try it, please. >> ~Stumper >> > There are a lot more, Blowjob for one, and Bill, Bob, Shellshock etc. > etc. But what use is being one of Satan's minions and not trying do a good > job for your boss to earn Brownie points? To get Christians to "shut up" is > the sole aim of all of them, for they want Jesus Christ to be an obscure if > not forgotten historical entity. > But we Christians know, that were the Son of God not uplifted even the > stones would cry out immediately. (Lk:19:40). > Thank you. After filtering them and several more out, I find alt.atheism quite enjoyable. I'm all for allowing people say what they believe; whatever that might be. Within reason, of course. We cannot tolerate blatant hate speeches. -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Mark K. Bilbo Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:56:45 -0400, stumper wrote: > Pastor Frank wrote: >> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message >> news:q6adnXXgzZmHvJ3bnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@ptd.net... >>> Pastor Frank wrote: >>>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central >>>>>> is >>>>>> going to yank your number. >>>>> Oh shut up Frank. >>>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic >>>>> Subversion >>>> Don't want us to rat on you? And cause your precious atheist >>>> number >>>> to be yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! >>> Most of the atheist hate messages in this forum are generated by the >>> following four posters. >>> Mark K. Bilbo >>> tirebiter >>> Michael Gray >>> The Chief Instigator >>> If you simply filter them out, >>> you will see a much more peaceful place. Try it, please. >>> ~Stumper >>> >> There are a lot more, Blowjob for one, and Bill, Bob, Shellshock >> etc. >> etc. But what use is being one of Satan's minions and not trying do a >> good job for your boss to earn Brownie points? To get Christians to >> "shut up" is the sole aim of all of them, for they want Jesus Christ to >> be an obscure if not forgotten historical entity. >> But we Christians know, that were the Son of God not uplifted even >> the >> stones would cry out immediately. (Lk:19:40). >> >> > > Thank you. > > After filtering them and several more out, I find alt.atheism quite > enjoyable. > > I'm all for allowing people say what they believe; whatever that might be. > > Within reason, of course. > We cannot tolerate blatant hate speeches. That's why we find you intolerable. -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:m8f303dvko2sa79qj4o0avgl9ncaqk3d55@4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:03:43 +0800, in alt.atheism > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in > <46012efb$0$16272$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>news:08vqv2pcs0gpcoqd6ercnmndo9oa2jdkie@4ax.com... >>> On 18 Mar 2007 08:56:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in >>> <1174233367.533631.313160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: >>>>On Mar 18, 8:29?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: >>>>> Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>> > >> We have nothing to talk about. use words with their actual >>>>> > >> meanings, not with meanings given to them by atheists. >>>>> >>>>> > > The word "fetus" is a precise, specific term--unlike the many >>>>> > > nonsense >>>>> > > religious terms created solely to inflame emotions over the >>>>> > > abortion >>>>> > > issue. >>>>> >>>>> > >> The fact that atheists can say that unborn children are not human >>>>> > >> beings >>>>> > >> means nothing to me. >>>>> >>>>> > > Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of >>>>> > > those >>>>> > > nonsense terms) are not human beings. >>>>> >>>>> > "not human beings" like Jews were in Germany perhaps, or Negros >>>>> > were >>>>> > in >>>>> > the USA? >>>>> >>>>> No, "not human beings" like not having a birth date...- Hide quoted >>>>> text - >>>>> >>>>The term "human being" has nothing to do with time. All it means is >>>>that the individual is human and exists. With regard to the term >>>>child, I use it the same way it was used in the Bible. Luke 2:5 To >>>>be taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with child. >>>>As you can see from this verse of the Bible, Jesus Christ was a child >>>>while he was still in his mother's womb. >>> >>> The law has never treated fetuses as if they were children. Get over it. >>> >> Now that's a lie!!! Until abortion was declared legal, ALL humans were >>protected by law, and a human "foetus" is undeniably human. You are just >>conveniently discriminating against the most vulnerable of our society. > > Show me a law that treated a foetus as a child. > Your use of the euphemism "foetus" shows you are unwilling to recognise a developing human as a child. You now belong to those who would call others dehumanising names, for the purpose of easing the conscience when killing them and to avoid guilt. That's what monsters, like serial killers do, to be able to do what they do. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:0te403t97q1qsf82d8620c3h4ecufalm39@4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:33:12 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> > wrote: > - Refer: <0mq303havj87mrsfcgkd3065m2li1oneb4@4ax.com> >>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:39:00 +0800, in alt.atheism >>"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in >><4601dc99$0$16296$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>news:qloqv2pt3140flgriksofk45h87tj1jsge@4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:44:29 +0800, in alt.atheism >>>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in >>>> <45fcb9bf$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >>>>>"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:1hv3ycb.lnc03k1xa85e6N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com... >>>> >>>>>> Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of those >>>>>> nonsense terms) are not human beings. >>>>>> >>>>> "not human beings" like Jews were in Germany perhaps, or Negros >>>>> were >>>>> in >>>>>the USA? >>>> >>>> Not really. >>>> By the way, I have no use for abortion, but the folks who call >>>> themselves 'pro-life' have proven themselves to be some of the most >>>> vile, corrupt people in American politics today. They are offensive >>>> beyond words. >>>> >>> Any evidence for your vilifications and accusations? Oh, I forgot, >>>...proof and evidence is only required from Christians, all others can >>>just >>>voice their personal and private opinions as if they were facts, and >>>expect >>>to be taken seriously. But then, that is atheists dogma, isn't it? >> >>Since you have your mind made up, I won't bother to direct you to the >>evidence. You have made it quite clear that I would be offering pearls >>before swine. > > What is your evidence that Pastit Wank has such a thing as a "mind" to > "make up"? > I have seen not a skerrick of any such thing in the last decade or so. > Perhaps you could point me to it, say: the header of the single post > in which he may have displayed some rudimentary intelligence? > I'm thinking that you will be incapable of doing so. > You atheists are as bad as the theists in your wild implicated > assertions!! > Sure looks like no one is living up to YOUR expectations. LOL -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:23:56 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <46072e15$0$16335$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:m8f303dvko2sa79qj4o0avgl9ncaqk3d55@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:03:43 +0800, in alt.atheism >> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in >> <46012efb$0$16272$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>news:08vqv2pcs0gpcoqd6ercnmndo9oa2jdkie@4ax.com... >>>> On 18 Mar 2007 08:56:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in >>>> <1174233367.533631.313160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: >>>>>On Mar 18, 8:29?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: >>>>>> Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> > >> We have nothing to talk about. use words with their actual >>>>>> > >> meanings, not with meanings given to them by atheists. >>>>>> >>>>>> > > The word "fetus" is a precise, specific term--unlike the many >>>>>> > > nonsense >>>>>> > > religious terms created solely to inflame emotions over the >>>>>> > > abortion >>>>>> > > issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> > >> The fact that atheists can say that unborn children are not human >>>>>> > >> beings >>>>>> > >> means nothing to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> > > Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of >>>>>> > > those >>>>>> > > nonsense terms) are not human beings. >>>>>> >>>>>> > "not human beings" like Jews were in Germany perhaps, or Negros >>>>>> > were >>>>>> > in >>>>>> > the USA? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, "not human beings" like not having a birth date...- Hide quoted >>>>>> text - >>>>>> >>>>>The term "human being" has nothing to do with time. All it means is >>>>>that the individual is human and exists. With regard to the term >>>>>child, I use it the same way it was used in the Bible. Luke 2:5 To >>>>>be taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with child. >>>>>As you can see from this verse of the Bible, Jesus Christ was a child >>>>>while he was still in his mother's womb. >>>> >>>> The law has never treated fetuses as if they were children. Get over it. >>>> >>> Now that's a lie!!! Until abortion was declared legal, ALL humans were >>>protected by law, and a human "foetus" is undeniably human. You are just >>>conveniently discriminating against the most vulnerable of our society. >> >> Show me a law that treated a foetus as a child. >> > Your use of the euphemism "foetus" shows you are unwilling to recognise >a developing human as a child. As you know, the word foetus is not a euphemism. >You now belong to those who would call others >dehumanising names, for the purpose of easing the conscience when killing >them and to avoid guilt. That's what monsters, like serial killers do, to be >able to do what they do. What utter hogwash. Once again, you show to us that you are in no way a follower of Jesus. Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:49:18 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Wonderful. >>>>> >>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>> >>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>> >>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>> >>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>> that it does not exist. >>>> >>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>> >>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>> even know what they are doing. >>> They are just hate-filled morons. >> >> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >> morons in that group. >> >>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >> >> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >> >> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >> believe in gods? >> >> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >> >>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>> Almost a fighting word. >> >> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >> >> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >> >> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >> >>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>> If you cannot talk about faith >>> without resorting to abusive language, >>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >> >> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >> >>> Do you have faith in reason? >> >> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >> > >Good for you. >Such attitude is all I'm asking for >here at alt.atheism. > >I'm not interested in controlling >what people think or how they think, >but just how they behave here. Well, personally I enjoy the acrimony at times. No voice of reason is going to stop it anyhow. You might be interested to know that you often come across as highly arrogant yourself. When you come across that way you are bound to get negative responses. And such negative responses might distort your images of some of the fine people here in alt.atheism ;> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism >Are you a physicalist? What do I know? My gut would have me be a neutral monist as described in the Wikipedia article. There are clearly all kinds of phenomena -- surely many millions of times more that I don't know of than that I do. But seeing that they all happen in the same reality, they must have something in common at some level. Despite that, all instances I know of what I call "mind" are easily influenced by what I call "physis"; and not vice-versa to the same degree. It does look like the physical supervenes in the cases I know of. But why on earth have awareness in that case? I'm really not heavily invested in any metaphysical view. Quote
Guest stumper Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:49:18 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> > wrote: > >> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Wonderful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>>> >>>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>>> >>>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>>> that it does not exist. >>>>> >>>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>>> >>>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>>> even know what they are doing. >>>> They are just hate-filled morons. >>> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >>> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >>> morons in that group. >>> >>>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >>> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >>> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >>> >>> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >>> believe in gods? >>> >>> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >>> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >>> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >>> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >>> >>>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>>> Almost a fighting word. >>> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >>> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >>> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >>> >>> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >>> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >>> >>> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >>> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >>> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >>> >>>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>>> If you cannot talk about faith >>>> without resorting to abusive language, >>>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >>> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >>> >>>> Do you have faith in reason? >>> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >>> >> Good for you. >> Such attitude is all I'm asking for >> here at alt.atheism. >> >> I'm not interested in controlling >> what people think or how they think, >> but just how they behave here. > > Well, personally I enjoy the acrimony at times. No voice of reason is > going to stop it anyhow. > > You might be interested to know that you often come across as highly > arrogant yourself. When you come across that way you are bound to get > negative responses. > > And such negative responses might distort your images of some of the > fine people here in alt.atheism ;> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism >> Are you a physicalist? > > What do I know? > > My gut would have me be a neutral monist as described in the Wikipedia > article. There are clearly all kinds of phenomena -- surely many > millions of times more that I don't know of than that I do. But > seeing that they all happen in the same reality, they must have > something in common at some level. > > Despite that, all instances I know of what I call "mind" are easily > influenced by what I call "physis"; and not vice-versa to the same > degree. It does look like the physical supervenes in the cases I know > of. > > But why on earth have awareness in that case? > > I'm really not heavily invested in any metaphysical view. > It's about time for us to do a paradigm shift. God is better handled by social science than by natural science. My working hypothesis for this week is this: God is our world government in exile. If you wanna know whether it even exists, you can use the same scientific method you would use to establish that your government exists. -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1174660452.263485.178520@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > Pastor Frank wrote: >> <andi1235@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1174332707.125185.93970@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> > On Feb 13, 12:13 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> Because we aren't smug gits like you. We haven't already judged >> >> ourselves and decided that we passed and that everyone who disagrees >> >> with us will go to hell. Of course, I think you made it all up with >> >> your >> >> personal interpretation of the Bible, so I don't really care what you >> >> do. However much I might be satisfied with the result, I know that no >> >> one is going to send you to hell for being self-righteous. >> > >> > No one will go to Hell for being self-righteous, but atheists who are >> > completely certain in their BELIEF of the lack of any Gods are just as >> > self-righteous and smug as any Fundamentalist Christian out there -- >> > and for the record, I don't think either side is right. I am >> > absolutely opposed to the Fundamentalist view of Heaven and Hell and >> > religion in general, but I am equally opposed to Atheists who are so >> > certain in THEIR beliefs that they can't stand the thought that there >> > might be something out there more impressive then humans. Granted, >> > the Atheist isn't going to try and condemn me to eternal suffering >> > because I disagree with them, but some of them still tend to be self- >> > righteous jerks, or "smug gits," if you prefer. >> > Sorry for the harsh tone, but come on, someone else's belief in Hell >> > isn't hurting you, so take the high ground and be polite about >> > things. You can't possibly know the One Certain Truth any more then >> > your average Christian does, and except for a small minority of evil, >> > angry religious people who try to justify their evil actions by >> > twisting religion to their purposes, the vast majority of people who >> > hold some sort of religious belief are not hurting ANYONE. No matter >> > how much they believe in Hell, they aren't going to make it true. >> > FYI, I like to believe that there is some sort of God or group of Gods >> > out there, but I don't for a moment pretend to know for sure, and >> > since no one could possibly know the Truth for sure, I'm willing to >> > live and let live, unless someone is acting like an ass because of >> > their belief or lack thereof, at which point I'll....um....give them a >> > (hopefully!) polite lecture, apparently . >> > -Andi >> > >> The hell, as well as God and His heaven etc. of your definition are >> sure >> NOT to exist. The challenge for you as well as for atheists is to find >> that >> one definition of those words which make sense. > > Uh, no, Frank. The "challenge" is to get theists to agree on one > definition. It isn't the job of atheists to define the beliefs of > theists. Why would it be? > >> An atheist is one who gave up thinking about meanings and testing >> them, >> in favour of chanting mantras which require no evidence, nor logic, >> thought >> and reason. > > Really. Your proposed logical, evidentiary test for deities is what? > Whether they make sense or not. Our Christian deity is love, as in "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and amor vincit omnia, meaning love beats logic and reason every time. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:59:01 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:49:18 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wonderful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>>>> that it does not exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>>>> >>>>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>>>> even know what they are doing. >>>>> They are just hate-filled morons. >>>> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >>>> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >>>> morons in that group. >>>> >>>>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>>>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >>>> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >>>> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >>>> >>>> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >>>> believe in gods? >>>> >>>> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >>>> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >>>> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >>>> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >>>> >>>>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>>>> Almost a fighting word. >>>> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >>>> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >>>> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >>>> >>>> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >>>> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >>>> >>>> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >>>> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >>>> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >>>> >>>>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>>>> If you cannot talk about faith >>>>> without resorting to abusive language, >>>>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >>>> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >>>> >>>>> Do you have faith in reason? >>>> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >>>> >>> Good for you. >>> Such attitude is all I'm asking for >>> here at alt.atheism. >>> >>> I'm not interested in controlling >>> what people think or how they think, >>> but just how they behave here. >> >> Well, personally I enjoy the acrimony at times. No voice of reason is >> going to stop it anyhow. >> >> You might be interested to know that you often come across as highly >> arrogant yourself. When you come across that way you are bound to get >> negative responses. >> >> And such negative responses might distort your images of some of the >> fine people here in alt.atheism ;> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism >>> Are you a physicalist? >> >> What do I know? >> >> My gut would have me be a neutral monist as described in the Wikipedia >> article. There are clearly all kinds of phenomena -- surely many >> millions of times more that I don't know of than that I do. But >> seeing that they all happen in the same reality, they must have >> something in common at some level. >> >> Despite that, all instances I know of what I call "mind" are easily >> influenced by what I call "physis"; and not vice-versa to the same >> degree. It does look like the physical supervenes in the cases I know >> of. >> >> But why on earth have awareness in that case? >> >> I'm really not heavily invested in any metaphysical view. >> > >It's about time for us to do a paradigm shift. > >God is better handled by social science >than by natural science. > >My working hypothesis for this week is this: >God is our world government in exile. > >If you wanna know whether it even exists, >you can use the same scientific method >you would use to establish that your government exists. In that case "God" becomes a name for the collective wishes of people. This is not the way the word "God" is actually used by most people, but I'm willing to go along. It might be that many people impute their wishes for an ideal world government to something they call "God", but not all things said of this or that notion of "God" come from anyone's notion of an ideal world government. Also, not all notions of an ideal world government are imputed to a "God". On top of that, people often feel themselves compelled by "God" into courses of action that result in bitter conflict with people who have other ideas of "God" -- or with people who have no personal idea of "God". Does it exist? Not in any simple way, no. The meanings of words drift around without regard for convenience. The word "god" or even "God" is not something that you can make a sweeping generalization about in that way, hoping to capture what is "essential". To do that you have to restrict the application of the word to a narrower field. OR You might mean something else by "God is our world government in exile". I have only reacted to one possible understanding of your vague yet grand-sounding "working hypothesis". I am not going to react to all the other things that you might possibly mean. You'll have to make yourself clearer. 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.