Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Case closed. I don't want to hear none of your lip!
Do I make myself clear?
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
... as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>, Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief,
it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not grasp the possibility.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not the
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
... as Religions are confident that there is a God.
"Religions" are not confident that there is a god. The followers are. Anyway...
Without claiming knowledge, I would say that I believe there are no
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
gods. But the difference between my belief and the theist's belief is
that I can be proven wrong, whereas the theist can't. And that is the fundamental difference between the two kinds of belief.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not the
same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
... as Religions are confident that there is a God.
"Religions" are not confident that there is a god. The followers are. Anyway...
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Without claiming knowledge, I would say that I believe there are no
gods. But the difference between my belief and the theist's belief is
that I can be proven wrong, whereas the theist can't. And that is the fundamental difference between the two kinds of belief.
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident
that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
since there is no way
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
History is full of examples of huge numbers of people being
incorrect about many things. Supporting evidence is
lacking.
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
That is not scientific proof.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon
of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this
group would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a
god that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove.
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just
light entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
any court would disagree with you
since there is no way
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
I was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
History is full of examples of huge numbers of people being
incorrect about many things. Supporting evidence is
lacking.
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
That is not scientific proof.
I never said it was
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon
of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. >believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this
group would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with
science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a
god that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove.
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never
convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just
light entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
I never said it was
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:That is not scientific proof.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proveswith any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon
of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today.
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
of evidence.
The value of eyewitnesses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
How about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
There are hundreds of others. In fact
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>> Personal testimony is never evidence
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
of evidence.
maybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more
weight than if just one person says it.
The value of eyewitnesses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
How about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of all >religious faiths.
There are hundreds of others. In fact
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
yes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for >example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at the
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians
believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70
virgins if they die as martyrs.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:50:59 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9c496Fsit6U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Then why did you mention the number of Christians and other
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, MaximusI don't believe any number can.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:I never said it was
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>> That is not scientific proof.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proveswith any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. >>>> believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
religions as if the numbers matter?
The issue is numbers, not beliefs. And whether numbers canAre you saying the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
no, could be it's just different beliefs about God
validate beliefs.
--
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
I never said it was
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>> That is not scientific proof.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proveswith any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today.
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
I don't believe any number can.
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
no, could be it's just different beliefs about God
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>> Personal testimony is never evidence
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
of evidence.
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more
weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
Or not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians
believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70
virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
I do not.
--
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:50:59 +1000, Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome>
in alt.atheism with message-id <l9c496Fsit6U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome>
in alt.atheism with message-id <l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net>
wrote:
D wrote:Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons who
I never said it was
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:That is not scientific proof.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something without >>>>>>> any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
evidence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proveswith any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a
pantheon of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how >>>>> foolish this position is.
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world
today.
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
believed in Christianity and millions that believed in other gods.
Does that mean those gods were valid at that time and Christianity was
not? Does a religion become valid when a certain level of belief is
reached? What is the number needed to validate a religion as being
true?
I don't believe any number can.
Then why did you mention the number of Christians and other religions as
if the numbers matter?
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims are valid so
there are at least two gods? Do Hindus contribute a third?
no, could be it's just different beliefs about God
The issue is numbers, not beliefs. And whether numbers can validate
beliefs.
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:50:59 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c496Fsit6U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Then why did you mention the number of Christians and other
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, MaximusI don't believe any number can.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:I never said it was
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>>> That is not scientific proof.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves >>>>>> god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous >>>>>> standards of science.with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently >>>>> 2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. >>>>> believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish >>>>>> this position is.
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
religions as if the numbers matter?
because they do matter. they are evidence.
I never said they validate
the beliefs as truth
The issue is numbers, not beliefs. And whether numbers canAre you saying the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
no, could be it's just different beliefs about God
validate beliefs.
--
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>>> Personal testimony is never evidence
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
of evidence.
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more
weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
no, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the
beliefs could be valid.
Or not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being >>> no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians
believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70
virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
no, faith is belief without proof
. the gospels for example are a basis
for Xtian faith
I do not.
--
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>>>> Personal testimony is never evidence
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
of evidence.
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more
weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of all >>>> religious faiths.How about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
beliefs could be valid.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofOr not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for >>>> example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just >>>> near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions >>>> of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being >>>> no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does >>>> that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians
believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold >>>> in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70
virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp >>>>> say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>>>>> Personal testimony is never evidence
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
of evidence.
weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of all >>>>> religious faiths.How about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
beliefs could be valid.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofOr not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for >>>>> example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just >>>>> near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions >>>>> of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact >>>>> theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being >>>>> no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does >>>>> that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians
believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold >>>>> in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70
virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
no. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a >conclusion.
A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
yes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
the gospels are evidence for the events they contain
it's irrelevant
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some >things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very)
good authority on this.
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident >>>>> that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
That is not scientific proof.
I never said it was
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves god. No >> such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous standards of
science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon of
gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish this
position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently 2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this group >> would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with
science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a god
that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove.
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never
convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just light
entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>, Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard Dawkins' >>> The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not grasp the >> possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, and for that matter, on any topic espousing any position. Of course, there is only
so much time in any given day.
Dawn
you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground with nothing
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident >>>>>> that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
That is not scientific proof.
I never said it was
That is kind of what proof means. I don't see any other way proof could
have any meaning.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves god. No >>> such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous standards of >>> science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon of >>> gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish this
position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently 2.4
billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. believers
in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
No, I don't consider "voting" proof. If that were the case, then clearly
the earth was proven to be flat once, and the sun was proven to circle the >earth. I could go on, but you realize of course how absurd equating
followers with proof is.
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this group >>> would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with
science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a god
that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove.
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never
convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just light >>> entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
On 30/04/2024 8:24 pm, Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:That is not scientific proof.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>
I never said it was
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today.
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
Attila wrote:
Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
Hahahahahahaha...
One of the very, very rare rational inquiries from Attila.
It is like it is Christmas. :-).
Michael Christ
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this
group would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with >>>> science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a
god that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove. >>>>
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never >>>> convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just
light entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:26:09 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v0rr62$2mgqd$4@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 30/04/2024 8:24 pm, Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:That is not scientific proof.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>>
I never said it was
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. >>>> believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
Attila wrote:
Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
Hahahahahahaha...
One of the very, very rare rational inquiries from Attila.
It is like it is Christmas. :-).
May your underwear be infested with nests of Bulldogs.
Assuming you wear underwear, of course.
Michael Christ
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this >>>>> group would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with >>>>> science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a
god that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove. >>>>>
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never >>>>> convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just
light entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
I never said it was
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>> That is not scientific proof.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proveswith any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today.
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
I don't believe any number can.
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
no, could be it's just different beliefs about God
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
That is not scientific proof.
I never said it was
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon
of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today.
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this
group would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with
science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a
god that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove.
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never
convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just
light entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even sure if God exist or not.
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even sure if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not even sure if God exist or not.
On 4/30/2024 8:09 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 9:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:What's the alternative? Fantasy??
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground with nothing >>>
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>, Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com >>>>>> says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard
Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not
grasp the
possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, and for
that matter, on any topic espousing any position. Of course, there >>>>> is only so much time in any given day.
Dawn
Dawn
the alternative is just like yours , who knows what will happen after
Yeah, "Who knows?!" Is faith causal? I don't believe that it is,
which, in my opinion, makes faith pointless.
Dawn
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even sure if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not even sure if God exist or not.
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.
I take issue with that.
of any religion.
A statement that something does not exist would require
evidence of a negative, which is almost impossible to
provide.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god. My default position is that as a
result no god exists. Since this is a binary issue to take
the default position that a god does exist would require I
also take the position that vampires, dragons, elves,
werewolves, shape changers, super heroes, and all sorts of
other mythical characters must also exist.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level
of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
That is not scientific proof.
I never said it was
That is kind of what proof means. I don't see any other way proof
could have any meaning.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a
pantheon of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how
foolish this position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world
today. believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
No, I don't consider "voting" proof. If that were the case, then
clearly the earth was proven to be flat once, and the sun was proven
to circle the earth. I could go on, but you realize of course how
absurd equating followers with proof is.
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that
this group would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove
with science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a
god that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove.
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will
never convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is
just light entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even
sure if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not
even sure if God exist or not.
That always ends up in nitpicking. My choosen word for it is agnostic,
but many atheists disagree with me. To each his own. ;)
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:26:09 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v0rr62$2mgqd$4@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 30/04/2024 8:24 pm, Attila wrote:May your underwear be infested with nests of Bulldogs.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, MaximusAttila wrote:
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:
I never said it was
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>> That is not scientific proof.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proveswith any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently
god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous
standards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish
this position is.
2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. >>>> believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 personsHahahahahahaha...
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
Are you say the numbers prove both Christians and Muslims
are valid so there are at least two gods? Do Hindus
contribute a third?
One of the very, very rare rational inquiries from Attila.
It is like it is Christmas. :-).
Assuming you wear underwear, of course.
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
RICHARD DAWKINS said in print:
"A supernatural creator almost certainly does
not exist and religious faith is a delusion
(Wikipedia)
A person like Richard Dawkins chooses his words very carefully.
Notice there is the word "almost" before certainly.
almost
/'lmost/
adverb
not quite; https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+almost
That means he said 'not quite certain'...does not exist.
'not quite'. ALMOST!
"A supernatural creator *ALMOST* certainly does not exist..."
*ALMOST*
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident >>>> that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even sure >>> if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not even >>> sure if God exist or not.
That always ends up in nitpicking. My choosen word for it is agnostic, but >> many atheists disagree with me. To each his own. ;)
atheism simply means 'without theism'. the 'a' in atheism signifies that. to my mind it's the best, most succinct definition.
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:That is not scientific proof.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident >>>>>>> that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>
I never said it was
That is kind of what proof means. I don't see any other way proof could
have any meaning.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves god. >>>> No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous standards >>>> of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon of >>>> gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish this
position is.
with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently 2.4 >>> billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today.
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
No, I don't consider "voting" proof. If that were the case, then clearly
the earth was proven to be flat once, and the sun was proven to circle the >> earth. I could go on, but you realize of course how absurd equating
followers with proof is.
yes, and I don't equate followers with proof
If you have a scientific proof, let's hear it, and I'm sure that this
group would be converted.
Now... here's the kicker. Any god that would be possible to prove with >>>> science, would not be a god, but a component of this world.
So by the very nature of us, the world we live in and our senses, a god >>>> that is per definition, outside this world, is impossible to prove.
That hasn't stopped people from trying, but that is why you will never >>>> convince anyone here. I'm sure you know that and that this is just light >>>> entertainment, but I'll mention it anyway.
Atheists
say without supporting evidence there is no reason to accept
the existence of anything. Including any god.
Using the logic of theists the existence of anything at all
can be supported, including werewolves, trolls, elves,
vampires, dragons, shape changers, and people with super
hero abilities.
Absence of proof that something exists does not suggest that
it does exist.
The Starmaker wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.
Sort of a Charles Darwin, right? I forgot, was Charles Darwin a very religious Christian or Catholic person????
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
and the third person
On Wed, 1 May 2024, Maximus wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident >>>> that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even sure >>> if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not even >>> sure if God exist or not.
That always ends up in nitpicking. My choosen word for it is agnostic, but >> many atheists disagree with me. To each his own. ;)
atheism simply means 'without theism'. the 'a' in atheism signifies that. to
my mind it's the best, most succinct definition.
Yes, atheism for me means you do not believe in god. Not belief in lack of
a god, hence, the argument that atheists are believers is not a good one
in my book. If you phrase it as "I believe there is no god" then it's your own fault for exciting all the theists. ;)
In terms of simple logic. Theism means for me, belief in x, where x is
is some kind of deity.
Atheism, means not belief in x, where x is some kind of deity.
Theism: b(x). (where b is belief in, x deity)
Atheism:; !b(x). (where ! is not, b is belief in, and x deity)
The theists that argue that atheism is a belief, in my book and interpretation and definition, are arguing that !b = b which is a logical contradiction, and hence an invalid argument.
On Wed, 1 May 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.
Sort of a Charles Darwin, right? I forgot, was Charles Darwin a very religious Christian or Catholic person????
Charles Darwin is very commonly listed as an agnostic. But recently I
found out that that side of the equation is a jungle of ism and
combination of ism.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:01:29 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9c8dbFt67nU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Not really. They must be accepted before they are evidence
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:50:59 +1000, Maximusbecause they do matter. they are evidence.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c496Fsit6U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Then why did you mention the number of Christians and other
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, MaximusI don't believe any number can.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:I never said it was
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>>>> That is not scientific proof.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves >>>>>>> god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous >>>>>>> standards of science.with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently >>>>>> 2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. >>>>>> believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>>>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish >>>>>>> this position is.
who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
religions as if the numbers matter?
- at best they are unsupported opinion.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I never said they validateActual evidence usually supports something as being true or
the beliefs as truth
factual.
--
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp >>>>>> say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
of evidence.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of all >>>>>> religious faiths.How about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
and they can't all be correct.
beliefs could be valid.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofOr not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for >>>>>> example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just >>>>>> near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions >>>>>> of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact >>>>>> theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being >>>>>> no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does >>>>>> that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold >>>>>> in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
conclusion.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
Absolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
Simply
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
Such validation requires unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some
things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very)
good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
--
On Wed, 1 May 2024, Maximus wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level
of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even
sure if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not
even sure if God exist or not.
That always ends up in nitpicking. My choosen word for it is
agnostic, but many atheists disagree with me. To each his own. ;)
atheism simply means 'without theism'. the 'a' in atheism signifies
that. to my mind it's the best, most succinct definition.
Yes, atheism for me means you do not believe in god. Not belief in
lack of a god, hence, the argument that atheists are believers is not
a good one in my book. If you phrase it as "I believe there is no god"
then it's your own fault for exciting all the theists. ;)
In terms of simple logic. Theism means for me, belief in x, where x is
is some kind of deity.
Atheism, means not belief in x, where x is some kind of deity.
Theism: b(x). (where b is belief in, x deity)
Atheism:; !b(x). (where ! is not, b is belief in, and x deity)
The theists that argue that atheism is a belief, in my book and interpretation and definition, are arguing that !b = b which is a
logical contradiction, and hence an invalid argument.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.
I take issue with that. I have nothing to do with any part
of any religion.
Here is the current con artists of the day:
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
On 4/30/2024 10:58 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 1/05/2024 1:41 pm, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:09 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 9:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground with
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>,
Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same >>>>>>>>>> level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard >>>>>>>>> Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not >>>>>>>> grasp the
possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, and
for that matter, on any topic espousing any position. Of
course, there is only so much time in any given day.
Dawn
nothing
What's the alternative? Fantasy??
Dawn
the alternative is just like yours , who knows what will happen after
Yeah, "Who knows?!" Is faith causal? I don't believe that it is,
which, in my opinion, makes faith pointless.
Dawn
You can't live without faith in something, you silly girl! Faith in a
"nothing" is about as ridiculous as it gets, though.
Michael,
Define "faith".
Dawn
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two
murders.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp >>>>>>> say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
of evidence.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of all >>>>>>> religious faiths.How about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
beliefs could be valid.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofOr not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for >>>>>>> example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just >>>>>>> near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions >>>>>>> of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact >>>>>>> theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does >>>>>>> that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold >>>>>>> in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
conclusion.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
unsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's >credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one
else did, that still needs to be investigated.
Absolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
the impact they had on the world suggests otherwise
Simply
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
nevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim
is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof.
just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for >their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the >believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the
God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this
seem obvious.
Such validation requires unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some
things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very)
good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
yes
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:01:29 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c8dbFt67nU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Not really. They must be accepted before they are evidence
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:50:59 +1000, Maximusbecause they do matter. they are evidence.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c496Fsit6U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Then why did you mention the number of Christians and other
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, MaximusI don't believe any number can.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:I never said it was
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence. >>>>>>>> That is not scientific proof.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>>>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
without any supporting evidence for that existence.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that proves >>>>>>>> god. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the rigorous >>>>>>>> standards of science.with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are currently >>>>>>> 2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world today. >>>>>>> believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close. >>>>>> Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a pantheon >>>>>>>> of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how foolish >>>>>>>> this position is.
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
religions as if the numbers matter?
- at best they are unsupported opinion.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
yes, many ppl think the earth is proof of God. ie. created by God
I never said they validateActual evidence usually supports something as being true or
the beliefs as truth
factual.
yes
In article <62dafaf9-a5a7-88f5-67d8-02391a8b0cb2@example.net>, >nospam@example.net says...
On Wed, 1 May 2024, Maximus wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident >> >>>> that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even sure >> >>> if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not even >> >>> sure if God exist or not.
That always ends up in nitpicking. My choosen word for it is agnostic, but
many atheists disagree with me. To each his own. ;)
atheism simply means 'without theism'. the 'a' in atheism signifies that. to
my mind it's the best, most succinct definition.
Yes, atheism for me means you do not believe in god. Not belief in lack of >> a god, hence, the argument that atheists are believers is not a good one
in my book. If you phrase it as "I believe there is no god" then it's your >> own fault for exciting all the theists. ;)
In terms of simple logic. Theism means for me, belief in x, where x is
is some kind of deity.
Atheism, means not belief in x, where x is some kind of deity.
Theism: b(x). (where b is belief in, x deity)
Atheism:; !b(x). (where ! is not, b is belief in, and x deity)
The theists that argue that atheism is a belief, in my book and
interpretation and definition, are arguing that !b = b which is a logical
contradiction, and hence an invalid argument.
Yet the idea that there is no God is still what they believe.
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.
I take issue with that. I have nothing to do with any part
of any religion.
1
: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
the operative word is "or".
D wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024, Maximus wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of >>>>>> ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident >>>>>> that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even sure >>>>> if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not even >>>>> sure if God exist or not.
That always ends up in nitpicking. My choosen word for it is agnostic, >>>> but many atheists disagree with me. To each his own. ;)
atheism simply means 'without theism'. the 'a' in atheism signifies that. >>> to my mind it's the best, most succinct definition.
Yes, atheism for me means you do not believe in god. Not belief in lack of >> a god, hence, the argument that atheists are believers is not a good one in >> my book. If you phrase it as "I believe there is no god" then it's your own >> fault for exciting all the theists. ;)
In terms of simple logic. Theism means for me, belief in x, where x is is
some kind of deity.
Atheism, means not belief in x, where x is some kind of deity.
Theism: b(x). (where b is belief in, x deity)
Atheism:; !b(x). (where ! is not, b is belief in, and x deity)
The theists that argue that atheism is a belief, in my book and
interpretation and definition, are arguing that !b = b which is a logical
contradiction, and hence an invalid argument.
good explanation. for me tho it's no big deal how ppl think of atheism or define it. it all comes down simply to 'atheists don't believe in God'
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp >>>>>>> say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is >>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
of evidence.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of >>>>>>> allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
beliefs could be valid.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofOr not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for >>>>>>> example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just >>>>>>> near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact >>>>>>> theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as >>>>>>> being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does >>>>>>> that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with >>>>>>> gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
conclusion.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
unsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one else did, that still needs to be investigated.
Absolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
the impact they had on the world suggests otherwise
Simply
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
nevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof. just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this seem obvious.
Such validation requires unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some
things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very)
good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
yes
--
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the >>>>>> beliefs could be valid.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind >>>>>>>>> of evidence.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
twenty pp
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up overHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
50% of all
religious faiths.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofOr not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
evidence. for
example believers spend a lot of money in support of their
faith. just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many >>>>>>>> millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs.
in fact
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things >>>>>>>> as being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when
one does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg.
xtians
believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved
with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will
get 70
virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
conclusion.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
unsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on
it's credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but
no one else did, that still needs to be investigated.
Absolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
the impact they had on the world suggests otherwise
Simply
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
nevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your
claim is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's
no proof. just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are
evidence for their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and
Mosques and the believers (billions of them) are evidence for their
God. ie. that the God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or
Mosques. to me this seem obvious.
No, that is incorrect. Churches and churchgoers are evidence that
churches and organized religions exist. They are not evidence of
everything that religion proclaims to be true, is true.
Such validation requires unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but
some
things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very) >>>> good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
yes
Attila wrote:level of
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:01:29 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c8dbFt67nU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:50:59 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c496Fsit6U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same
evidence.I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is...beliefs.Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
provesThat is not scientific proof.I never said it was
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that
rigorousgod. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the
pantheonstandards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a
foolishof gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how
currentlythis position is.with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are
today.2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world
Not really. They must be accepted before they are evidencebecause they do matter. they are evidence.Then why did you mention the number of Christians and otherI don't believe any number can.believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close. >>>>>> Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 personswho believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
religions as if the numbers matter?
- at best they are unsupported opinion.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
yes, many ppl think the earth is proof of God. ie. created by God
I never said they validateActual evidence usually supports something as being true or
the beliefs as truth
factual.
yes
--
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two
murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
The Starmaker wrote:
Here is the current con artists of the day:
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
Now, this guy is obvious
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
he's an amateur con artist since he
has to re-word everything...
(he needs Richard Dawkins to do his press releases)
but he's knows The Con.
He surrounds himself with the top scientist
he can find (dats a pattern with these con artists)
It give him a front.
(eventually they all abdomen him anyway)
I see the Climate Con is still ongoing a little...
If these guys are on top...imagine the bottom of the barrel!
AND The Atheists! That's a ongoing Con that's been going
on for ages!! They even go their own newsgroup.
I mean, come on already atheist, ain't yous bored wit dis con already?
Inside every atheists there's a Christian dying to come out of the closet.
God is inside your DNA, how can you keep fighting what was embedded in you?
(strange how some atheists marry very religious Christians girls)
I bet there are atheists right now on some Christian Dating Service online!
Hey, nothing wrong wit dat as long as she's got big boobs, right?
She asks him, "You're an atheist, what are we going to talk about?"
He sez, "Oh, don't worry, all we atheists do is talk about God!"
She sez, "I have to be honest with you, I'm a very religious Christian but I never read the bible."
He sez, "Don't worry about it, I'll read it to you in bed."
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:level of
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:01:29 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c8dbFt67nU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:50:59 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c496Fsit6U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:39:27 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bsiiFrec7U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same
provesI never said it wasThat is not scientific proof.I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is >evidence....beliefs.Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
In order to count as proof, they need to devise a test that
rigorousgod. No such test has ever been devised that satisfies the
foolishstandards of science.
If personal testimony would be enough, then you end up with a >pantheon
of gods, pink unicorns, ufos etc. I am sure you can see how
currentlythis position is.with any evidence, we must determine credibility. there are
Not really. They must be accepted before they are evidencebecause they do matter. they are evidence.Then why did you mention the number of Christians and otherI don't believe any number can.2.4 billion christians and almost 2 billion muslims in the world >today.who believed in Christianity and millions that believed in
believers in pink unicorns, or other gods, don't even come close. >>>>>>> Interesting. At some point there were less than 20 persons
other gods. Does that mean those gods were valid at that
time and Christianity was not? Does a religion become
valid when a certain level of belief is reached? What is
the number needed to validate a religion as being true?
religions as if the numbers matter?
- at best they are unsupported opinion.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
yes, many ppl think the earth is proof of God. ie. created by God
I never said they validateActual evidence usually supports something as being true or
the beliefs as truth
factual.
yes
Good. But what to say if what is fact for one is fiction for another?
Whoever feeds us is God. Or at least, Good.
We love God.
Woof-woof
bt (Arindam's best friends)
--
On 5/1/2024 11:35 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Here is the current con artists of the day:
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
Now, this guy is obvious
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
he's an amateur con artist since he
has to re-word everything...
(he needs Richard Dawkins to do his press releases)
but he's knows The Con.
He surrounds himself with the top scientist
he can find (dats a pattern with these con artists)
It give him a front.
(eventually they all abdomen him anyway)
I see the Climate Con is still ongoing a little...
If these guys are on top...imagine the bottom of the barrel!
AND The Atheists! That's a ongoing Con that's been going
on for ages!! They even go their own newsgroup.
I mean, come on already atheist, ain't yous bored wit dis con already?
Inside every atheists there's a Christian dying to come out of the closet.
God is inside your DNA, how can you keep fighting what was embedded in you?
(strange how some atheists marry very religious Christians girls)
I bet there are atheists right now on some Christian Dating Service online!
Hey, nothing wrong wit dat as long as she's got big boobs, right?
She asks him, "You're an atheist, what are we going to talk about?"
He sez, "Oh, don't worry, all we atheists do is talk about God!"
She sez, "I have to be honest with you, I'm a very religious Christian but I never read the bible."
He sez, "Don't worry about it, I'll read it to you in bed."
All atheists that I have ever known are very lazy with respect to
atheism. For me, this is really it, this newsgroup. I have never even attended the annual American Atheists convention, although, I do feel
some guilt about not participating more.
Dawn
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two
murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive!
"Feel it, it's kicking!"
Twins? 3 murder chargers.
tripilets? i'm losing count.
Did you know the highest rate of Murder among women is..among pregnant women?
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
and the third person
There is no third person before live birth.
--
----------------
D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are
confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Richard Dawkins writes a book "The God Delusion", and he's not even
sure if God exist or not.
That has to be the REAL definion of an atheist, a person who is not
even sure if God exist or not.
That always ends up in nitpicking. My choosen word for it is agnostic,
but many atheists disagree with me. To each his own. ;)
atheism simply means 'without theism'. the 'a' in atheism signifies
that. to my mind it's the best, most succinct definition.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
and the third person
There is no third person before live birth.
Conception comes before birth, ask anyone.
On 4/30/2024 10:58 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 1/05/2024 1:41 pm, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:09 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 9:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground with
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>,
Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same >>>>>>>>>> level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard >>>>>>>>> Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not >>>>>>>> grasp the
possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, and
for that matter, on any topic espousing any position. Of course, >>>>>>> there is only so much time in any given day.
Dawn
nothing
What's the alternative? Fantasy??
Dawn
the alternative is just like yours , who knows what will happen after
Yeah, "Who knows?!" Is faith causal? I don't believe that it is,
which, in my opinion, makes faith pointless.
Dawn
You can't live without faith in something, you silly girl! Faith in a
"nothing" is about as ridiculous as it gets, though.
Michael,
Define "faith".
Dawn
On 5/2/2024 6:28 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 2/05/2024 8:57 am, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 10:58 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 1/05/2024 1:41 pm, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:09 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:Yeah, "Who knows?!" Is faith causal? I don't believe that it is, >>>>> which, in my opinion, makes faith pointless.
On 4/30/2024 9:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground with >>>>>>>> nothing
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>,
Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard >>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not >>>>>>>>>> grasp the
possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, and for >>>>>>>>> that matter, on any topic espousing any position. Of course, there >>>>>>>>> is only so much time in any given day.
Dawn
What's the alternative? Fantasy??
Dawn
the alternative is just like yours , who knows what will happen after >>>>>
Dawn
You can't live without faith in something, you silly girl! Faith in a
"nothing" is about as ridiculous as it gets, though.
Michael,
Define "faith".
Dawn
Faith is trusting in someone or something.
And you couldn't so much as clean your teeth without it.
Everything is a belief and then you put your faith in that belief or you do >> not...but either way, it is faith.
You have now been edumacated.
Sounds reasonable! As an atheist, I suppose that I *do* have faith, just not faith in God, Jesus (who I think was crazy), invisible unicorns, the FSM, fairies, etc.
Dawn
On 5/1/2024 11:35 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Here is the current con artists of the day:
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
Now, this guy is obvious
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
he's an amateur con artist since he
has to re-word everything...
(he needs Richard Dawkins to do his press releases)
but he's knows The Con.
He surrounds himself with the top scientist
he can find (dats a pattern with these con artists)
It give him a front.
(eventually they all abdomen him anyway)
I see the Climate Con is still ongoing a little...
If these guys are on top...imagine the bottom of the barrel!
AND The Atheists! That's a ongoing Con that's been going
on for ages!! They even go their own newsgroup.
I mean, come on already atheist, ain't yous bored wit dis con already?
Inside every atheists there's a Christian dying to come out of the closet. >>
God is inside your DNA, how can you keep fighting what was embedded in you? >>
(strange how some atheists marry very religious Christians girls)
I bet there are atheists right now on some Christian Dating Service online! >>
Hey, nothing wrong wit dat as long as she's got big boobs, right?
She asks him, "You're an atheist, what are we going to talk about?"
He sez, "Oh, don't worry, all we atheists do is talk about God!"
She sez, "I have to be honest with you, I'm a very religious Christian but >> I never read the bible."
He sez, "Don't worry about it, I'll read it to you in bed."
All atheists that I have ever known are very lazy with respect to atheism. For me, this is really it, this newsgroup. I have never even attended the annual American Atheists convention, although, I do feel some guilt about not participating more.
Dawn
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
On 2/05/2024 8:57 am, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 10:58 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 1/05/2024 1:41 pm, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:09 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:Yeah, "Who knows?!" Is faith causal? I don't believe that it is,
On 4/30/2024 9:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground with
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>,
Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same >>>>>>>>>>> level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard >>>>>>>>>> Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not >>>>>>>>> grasp the
possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, and >>>>>>>> for that matter, on any topic espousing any position. Of
course, there is only so much time in any given day.
Dawn
nothing
What's the alternative? Fantasy??
Dawn
the alternative is just like yours , who knows what will happen after >>>>
which, in my opinion, makes faith pointless.
Dawn
You can't live without faith in something, you silly girl! Faith in
a "nothing" is about as ridiculous as it gets, though.
Michael,
Define "faith".
Dawn
Faith is trusting in someone or something.
And you couldn't so much as clean your teeth without it.
Everything is a belief and then you put your faith in that belief or
you do not...but either way, it is faith.
You have now been edumacated.
Michael Christ
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:34:33 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9g5cuFglehU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True but without corroboration there would be little result.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusunsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the >>>>>> beliefs could be valid.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp >>>>>>>> say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind >>>>>>>>> of evidence.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerI disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofOr not. There is exactly the same support either way.There are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for >>>>>>>> example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just >>>>>>>> near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact >>>>>>>> theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does >>>>>>>> that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
conclusion.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one
else did, that still needs to be investigated.
Ra and Osiris had a similar impact on their world.the impact they had on the world suggests otherwiseAbsolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
Nonsense. Evidence without factual support is about asSimplynevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof.
just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for
their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the
believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the
God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this
seem obvious.
useless as can be imagined.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
Therefore belief or non-belief can be as simple as flippingSuch validation requires unambiguous,yes
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some >>>> things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very) >>>> good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
a coin.
Except belief under these conditions also requires
belief in anything including vampires, elves, giants,
dragons, werewolves, and shape shifters.
--
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
so only the mother has a say in what happens?
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:34:33 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5cuFglehU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True but without corroboration there would be little result.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusunsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a >>>>> conclusion.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the >>>>>>> beliefs could be valid.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp >>>>>>>>> say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind >>>>>>>>>> of evidence.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofThere are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact >>>>>>>>> theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs. >>>>>>>> Or not. There is exactly the same support either way.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one
else did, that still needs to be investigated.
Ra and Osiris had a similar impact on their world.the impact they had on the world suggests otherwiseAbsolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
Nonsense. Evidence without factual support is about asSimplynevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof.
just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for >>> their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the
believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the
God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this
seem obvious.
useless as can be imagined.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
Therefore belief or non-belief can be as simple as flippingSuch validation requires unambiguous,yes
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some >>>>> things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very) >>>>> good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
a coin.
of course ppl can believe or not, as with anything, like UFO's, or
Bigfoot, or whatever
Except belief under these conditions also requires
belief in anything including vampires, elves, giants,
dragons, werewolves, and shape shifters.
that's a stupid argument. belief in some thing doesn't create any
obligation to believe in some other thing.
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 5/1/2024 11:35 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Here is the current con artists of the day:
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
Now, this guy is obvious
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
he's an amateur con artist since he
has to re-word everything...
(he needs Richard Dawkins to do his press releases)
but he's knows The Con.
He surrounds himself with the top scientist
he can find (dats a pattern with these con artists)
It give him a front.
(eventually they all abdomen him anyway)
I see the Climate Con is still ongoing a little...
If these guys are on top...imagine the bottom of the barrel!
AND The Atheists! That's a ongoing Con that's been going
on for ages!! They even go their own newsgroup.
I mean, come on already atheist, ain't yous bored wit dis con already?
Inside every atheists there's a Christian dying to come out of the closet. >>
God is inside your DNA, how can you keep fighting what was embedded in you?
(strange how some atheists marry very religious Christians girls)
I bet there are atheists right now on some Christian Dating Service online!
Hey, nothing wrong wit dat as long as she's got big boobs, right?
She asks him, "You're an atheist, what are we going to talk about?"
He sez, "Oh, don't worry, all we atheists do is talk about God!"
She sez, "I have to be honest with you, I'm a very religious Christian but >> I never read the bible."
He sez, "Don't worry about it, I'll read it to you in bed."
All atheists that I have ever known are very lazy with respect to atheism. For me, this is really it, this newsgroup. I have never even attended the annual American Atheists convention, although, I do feel some guilt about not
participating more.
Dawn
Guilt is not a very productive feeling most of the time. Why is it
important to attend the convention?
Of course there is a God...
but God doesn't leave
evidence for just a
select few to see..
God leaves
evidence for everyone
to see...
even a 3 year old.
The evidence that
God exist is
almost certaintly
overwhelming!
I'll give you one example.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Is there any evidence
that an earth exist????
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
--
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:42:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9k4dqF498qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but how can defend not believing in something when the
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:34:33 +1000, Maximusof course ppl can believe or not, as with anything, like UFO's, or
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5cuFglehU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True but without corroboration there would be little result.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusunsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's >>>> credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one >>>> else did, that still needs to be investigated.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a >>>>>> conclusion.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the >>>>>>>> beliefs could be valid.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind >>>>>>>>>>> of evidence.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
reality.The value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below) >>>>>>>>> Any one will do. They all show what you see may not be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofThere are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs. >>>>>>>>> Or not. There is exactly the same support either way.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
Ra and Osiris had a similar impact on their world.the impact they had on the world suggests otherwiseAbsolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
Nonsense. Evidence without factual support is about asSimplynevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim >>>> is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof. >>>> just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for >>>> their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the
God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this
seem obvious.
useless as can be imagined.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
Therefore belief or non-belief can be as simple as flippingSuch validation requires unambiguous,yes
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some >>>>>> things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very) >>>>>> good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
a coin.
Bigfoot, or whatever
Except belief under these conditions also requiresthat's a stupid argument. belief in some thing doesn't create any
belief in anything including vampires, elves, giants,
dragons, werewolves, and shape shifters.
obligation to believe in some other thing.
evidence supporting something you do believe in is exactly
the same in either case?
Such a selection would be the definition of arbitrary.
--
On 5/3/2024 4:11 AM, D wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 5/2/2024 6:28 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 2/05/2024 8:57 am, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 10:58 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 1/05/2024 1:41 pm, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:09 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 9:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground >>>>>>>>>> with nothing
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>,
Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can >>>>>>>>>>>> not grasp the
possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, >>>>>>>>>>> and for that matter, on any topic espousing any position. >>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is only so much time in any given day.
Dawn
What's the alternative? Fantasy??
Dawn
the alternative is just like yours , who knows what will happen >>>>>>>> after
Yeah, "Who knows?!" Is faith causal? I don't believe that it >>>>>>> is, which, in my opinion, makes faith pointless.
Dawn
You can't live without faith in something, you silly girl! Faith
in a "nothing" is about as ridiculous as it gets, though.
Michael,
Define "faith".
Dawn
Faith is trusting in someone or something.
And you couldn't so much as clean your teeth without it.
Everything is a belief and then you put your faith in that belief
or you do not...but either way, it is faith.
You have now been edumacated.
Sounds reasonable! As an atheist, I suppose that I *do* have faith,
just not faith in God, Jesus (who I think was crazy), invisible
unicorns, the FSM, fairies, etc.
Dawn
Actually, when you look at it with a bit more thought, it is
completely unreasonable. G.E. Moore proved that there is a physical
world and people who believe the world is an illusion, generally seem
to be feeling genuine pain when hit over the head with a rock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
Let us also remember that the burden of proof falls on the one who
beliefs in something else than the world.
But there is a darker side to the erroneous belief that everything is
a belief, and that is that conversation, science and us talking
becomes impossible. Facts and the world exists, and all it takes to
realize it is to look out the window. If that was not a fact, any
discussion would be pointless because it would deteriorate into a
jumble of beliefs, and there would ultimate be no point since I can
counter any argument with "it is my belief".
So the belief that everything is a belief, leads to nothing and is an
extremely unproductive belief.
Well stated!
Dawn
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
the father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:42:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k4dqF498qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but how can defend not believing in something when the
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:34:33 +1000, Maximusof course ppl can believe or not, as with anything, like UFO's, or
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5cuFglehU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True but without corroboration there would be little result.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusunsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's >>>>> credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one >>>>> else did, that still needs to be investigated.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a >>>>>>> conclusion.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the >>>>>>>>> beliefs could be valid.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind >>>>>>>>>>>> of evidence.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
reality.The value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below) >>>>>>>>>> Any one will do. They all show what you see may not be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofThere are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs. >>>>>>>>>> Or not. There is exactly the same support either way.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers >>>>>>>>>> and painful punishment for non-believers.
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way >>>>>>>>>> for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who >>>>>>>>>> believe in such.
facts.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
Ra and Osiris had a similar impact on their world.the impact they had on the world suggests otherwiseAbsolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
Nonsense. Evidence without factual support is about asSimplynevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim >>>>> is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof. >>>>> just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for >>>>> their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the >>>>> believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the >>>>> God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this >>>>> seem obvious.
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
useless as can be imagined.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
Therefore belief or non-belief can be as simple as flippingSuch validation requires unambiguous,yes
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some >>>>>>> things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very) >>>>>>> good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
a coin.
Bigfoot, or whatever
Except belief under these conditions also requiresthat's a stupid argument. belief in some thing doesn't create any
belief in anything including vampires, elves, giants,
dragons, werewolves, and shape shifters.
obligation to believe in some other thing.
evidence supporting something you do believe in is exactly
the same in either case?
Such a selection would be the definition of arbitrary.
everything is considered on it's merits. there seems to be credible
evidence for believing in UFO's, werewolves not so much.
On 4/05/2024 7:03 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
the father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
No, the events will progress even if the father is not aware
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
"Atheists never agree and are always squabbling over dumb things."
You've just been given a Maximus-like Mindset Moron Mindless Motto!
Michael Christ
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
the father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
No, the events will progress even if the father is not aware
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:34:33 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5cuFglehU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True but without corroboration there would be little result.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusunsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximusno. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a >>>>> conclusion.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximusno, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the >>>>>>> beliefs could be valid.
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximusmaybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty >>>>>>>>> pp
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind >>>>>>>>>> of evidence.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximusany court would disagree with you
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:Personal testimony is never evidence
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more >>>>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
evidence.
Any one will do. They all show what you see may not beThe value of eyewitnesses:I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
reality.
So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of >>>>>>>>> allHow about Hindu?since there is no wayI was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
to support it.
As far as the "belief of billions" is
concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there >>>>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
religious faiths.
someone either way.
Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. Nono, faith is belief without proofThere are hundreds of others. In factyes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. >>>>>>>>> for
there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. >>>>>>>>> just
near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many >>>>>>>>> millions
of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in >>>>>>>>> fact
theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as >>>>>>>>> being
no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs. >>>>>>>> Or not. There is exactly the same support either way.
but at theMost religions have common factors - rewards for believers
end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one >>>>>>>>> does
that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians >>>>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with >>>>>>>>> gold
in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70 >>>>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
and painful punishment for non-believers.
Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
believe in such.
facts.
Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
and credible.
credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one
else did, that still needs to be investigated.
Ra and Osiris had a similar impact on their world.the impact they had on the world suggests otherwiseAbsolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be provenyes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
has this.
verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
different from any John Doe off any street.
Nonsense. Evidence without factual support is about asSimplynevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim
accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
certain time and place proves nothing.
There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actuallythe gospels are evidence for the events they contain. the gospels for example are a basisOr for any other religion. None of them have anything
for Xtian faith
beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
without any supporting evidence.
validate them
is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof.
just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for >>> their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the
believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the
God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this
seem obvious.
useless as can be imagined.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
Therefore belief or non-belief can be as simple as flippingSuch validation requires unambiguous,yes
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
it's irrelevantNothing beyond some physical locations and independently
whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some >>>>> things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very) >>>>> good authority on this.
verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
supernatural claims are independently supported.
a coin.
of course ppl can believe or not, as with anything, like UFO's, or Bigfoot, or whatever
Except belief under these conditions also requires
belief in anything including vampires, elves, giants,
dragons, werewolves, and shape shifters.
that's a stupid argument. belief in some thing doesn't create any obligation to believe in some other thing.
--
On 4/05/2024 7:03 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
the father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
No, the events will progress even if the father is not aware
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
"Atheists never agree and are always squabbling over dumb things."
You've just been given a Maximus-like Mindset Moron Mindless Motto!
Michael Christ
--
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
the events will progress even if the father is not aware
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
that makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get
to be a parent
the events will progress even if the father is not aware
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
of course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do
what she wants regardless
On 5/3/2024 11:43 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
D wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 5/1/2024 11:35 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Here is the current con artists of the day:
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
Now, this guy is obvious
http://archive.ph/qhTH7
he's an amateur con artist since he
has to re-word everything...
(he needs Richard Dawkins to do his press releases)
but he's knows The Con.
He surrounds himself with the top scientist
he can find (dats a pattern with these con artists)
It give him a front.
(eventually they all abdomen him anyway)
I see the Climate Con is still ongoing a little...
If these guys are on top...imagine the bottom of the barrel!
AND The Atheists! That's a ongoing Con that's been going
on for ages!! They even go their own newsgroup.
I mean, come on already atheist, ain't yous bored wit dis con already? >>>>
Inside every atheists there's a Christian dying to come out of the closet.
God is inside your DNA, how can you keep fighting what was embedded in you?
(strange how some atheists marry very religious Christians girls)
I bet there are atheists right now on some Christian Dating Service online!
Hey, nothing wrong wit dat as long as she's got big boobs, right?
She asks him, "You're an atheist, what are we going to talk about?"
He sez, "Oh, don't worry, all we atheists do is talk about God!"
She sez, "I have to be honest with you, I'm a very religious Christian but
I never read the bible."
He sez, "Don't worry about it, I'll read it to you in bed."
All atheists that I have ever known are very lazy with respect to atheism.
For me, this is really it, this newsgroup. I have never even attended the
annual American Atheists convention, although, I do feel some guilt about not
participating more.
Dawn
Guilt is not a very productive feeling most of the time. Why is it
important to attend the convention?
Dawn has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ even if Dawn think Jesus Christ is crazy.
I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus. For one, Jesus is
dead, which explains why he never calls me, sends me flowers, etc.
Dawn
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >>>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
to be a parent
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do
what she wants regardless
pregnant.
She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
--
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
will
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
to be a parent
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do
what she wants regardless
pregnant.
it's his child too (or will be). what if the woman wants to terminate,
but then after discussing it, they decide to raise the child?
She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I'm not saying she should be forced, only that that father is entitled
to have a say in the matter. although I don't know what rights the
father has legally, if any. thankfully, I've never been a party to an unwanted pregnancy.
--
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >>>>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
to be a parent
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do
what she wants regardless
pregnant.
it's his child too (or will be). what if the woman wants to terminate,
but then after discussing it, they decide to raise the child?
She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I'm not saying she should be forced, only that that father is entitled
to have a say in the matter. although I don't know what rights the
father has legally, if any. thankfully, I've never been a party to an >unwanted pregnancy.
On 5/05/2024 9:06 am, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get >>>> to be a parent
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he >>>>>> will
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage >>>>>>
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do >>>> what she wants regardless
pregnant.
it's his child too (or will be). what if the woman wants to terminate,
but then after discussing it, they decide to raise the child?
She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I'm not saying she should be forced, only that that father is entitled
to have a say in the matter. although I don't know what rights the
father has legally, if any. thankfully, I've never been a party to an
unwanted pregnancy.
I was going to say, "But your parents were," but I decided against it
because it was a bit mean.
Maximus is a moron but he is our Christian moron with his just concern
about the father's rights.
Whereas Attila is a complete asshole.
Michael Christ
On Sun, 5 May 2024 09:06:41 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9ntc5FllptU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:As long as she isn't forced any result is fine. I am not
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximusit's his child too (or will be). what if the woman wants to terminate,
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get >>>> to be a parent
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >>>>>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage >>>>>>
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do >>>> what she wants regardless
pregnant.
but then after discussing it, they decide to raise the child?
proabortion - I am prochoice. As long as she has a free
choice I don't care what that choice is.
Nor have I. At my age it is unlikely I could ever be.She is the one risking her life and health andI'm not saying she should be forced, only that that father is entitled
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
to have a say in the matter. although I don't know what rights the
father has legally, if any. thankfully, I've never been a party to an
unwanted pregnancy.
--
On 5/05/2024 9:06 am, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
he will
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage >>>>>>
get
to be a parent
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do >>>> what she wants regardless
pregnant.
it's his child too (or will be). what if the woman wants to
terminate, but then after discussing it, they decide to raise the child?
She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I'm not saying she should be forced, only that that father is
entitled to have a say in the matter. although I don't know what
rights the father has legally, if any. thankfully, I've never been a
party to an unwanted pregnancy.
I was going to say, "But your parents were," but I decided against it
because it was a bit mean.
Maximus is a moron
but he is our Christian moron with his just concern about the father's rights.
Whereas Attila is a complete asshole.
Michael Christ
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
that makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get
to be a parent
So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
the events will progress even if the father is not aware
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
of course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the >pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do
what she wants regardless
The father has no skin in the game once the woman is
pregnant. She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2024 09:06:41 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9ntc5FllptU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:As long as she isn't forced any result is fine. I am not
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximusit's his child too (or will be). what if the woman wants to terminate,
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get >>>>> to be a parent
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >>>>>>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage >>>>>>>
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do >>>>> what she wants regardless
pregnant.
but then after discussing it, they decide to raise the child?
proabortion - I am prochoice. As long as she has a free
choice I don't care what that choice is.
Nor have I. At my age it is unlikely I could ever be.She is the one risking her life and health andI'm not saying she should be forced, only that that father is entitled
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
to have a say in the matter. although I don't know what rights the
father has legally, if any. thankfully, I've never been a party to an
unwanted pregnancy.
oh, I thought you were a young(er) dude :)
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >> >>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
that makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get
to be a parent
So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
the events will progress even if the father is not aware
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
of course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do
what she wants regardless
The father has no skin in the game once the woman is
pregnant. She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I don't know what kind of world yous people live in...
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
but if a guy kills a pregant woman it means he decides if the baby lives or not. The woman has no say.
Look at the Prime Minister of Israel. He bombs baby hospitols. He is a baby killer. He has pregnant women killed simply
because they are...pregnant.
It is the man who decides whether or not a pregnant women has a baby or not, not the women.
leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s...MURDER.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
call it birth control, non-consensual abortion, genocide, etc.
If a woman tell her guy she's pregnant, the first thing he thinks of is...abortion.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
you cannot say no to a man.
This Is A Man's World.
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2024 21:47:07 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66370F4B.76D@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Pregnant or not she has no say in whether she lives or not.
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get >>>>> to be a parent
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >>>>>>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage >>>>>>>
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do >>>>> what she wants regardless
pregnant. She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I don't know what kind of world yous people live in...
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
but if a guy kills a pregant woman it means he decides if the baby lives or not. The woman has no say.
There are laws that govern that.
That was Hamas. Please explain how a war can be conducted
Look at the Prime Minister of Israel. He bombs baby hospitols. He is a baby killer. He has pregnant women killed simply
because they are...pregnant.
without hitting hospitals, schools, and so forth.
especially when Hamas uses civilians as human shields, and puts their >operations bases in hospitals, schools, etc/,
On Sat, 04 May 2024 21:47:07 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66370F4B.76D@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Pregnant or not she has no say in whether she lives or not.
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't get >>>> to be a parent
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if he will >>>>>> eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage >>>>>>
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do >>>> what she wants regardless
pregnant. She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I don't know what kind of world yous people live in...
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
but if a guy kills a pregant woman it means he decides if the baby lives or not. The woman has no say.
There are laws that govern that.
That was Hamas. Please explain how a war can be conducted
Look at the Prime Minister of Israel. He bombs baby hospitols. He is a baby killer. He has pregnant women killed simply
because they are...pregnant.
without hitting hospitals, schools, and so forth.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 5/05/2024 9:06 am, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2024 21:23:06 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9mk4sFfn9fU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:So? Many men become a parent and the result is no change at
On Sat, 4 May 2024 12:25:30 +1000, Maximusthat makes no sense. if the woman has a abortion the father doesn't
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9lkksFb5ebU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:No,
On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:37:39 +1000, Maximusthe father is directly involved. her decision will determine if
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9k44kF468qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:She is the only person directly involved. The final
On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:36:18 +1000, Maximusso only the mother has a say in what happens?
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9g5g4FglehU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:He is not involved at this point.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
decision belongs to her. She is the only one directly
affected by that decision.
he will
eventually have a biological child or not, assuming no miscarriage >>>>>>>
get
to be a parent
all in their life. In fact, any such a change is voluntary
on his part. The woman has the responsibility to take care
of the child (after risking her life and health to give
birth) unless she proactively passes that responsibility on
to another person. She can be arrested if she does not do
this.
The father has no skin in the game once the woman isthe events will progress even if the father is not awareof course. but I'm saying the father has a right to say whether the
of the situation. The only person who is always involved in
deciding what the eventual result will be is the woman
involved. In fact, the father does not even need to be
alive.
Her decision and her decision alone will determine he
outcome.
pregnancy should be terminated or not. but of course the woman will do >>>>> what she wants regardless
pregnant.
it's his child too (or will be). what if the woman wants to
terminate, but then after discussing it, they decide to raise the child? >>>
She is the one risking her life and health and
such a risk should be voluntary and not forced.
I'm not saying she should be forced, only that that father is
entitled to have a say in the matter. although I don't know what
rights the father has legally, if any. thankfully, I've never been a
party to an unwanted pregnancy.
I was going to say, "But your parents were," but I decided against it
because it was a bit mean.
nasty and untrue
Maximus is a moron
there's no evidence for that
but he is our Christian moron with his just concern about the father's
rights.
at least you can agree the father has rights
Whereas Attila is a complete asshole.
there's no evidence for that also.
both Attila and I justify what we say. you otoh claim 'the Lord' speaks
to you and tells you things, so you cannot justify what you say. you
resort to name calling to try to discredit us, because it's all you
have, since you cannot discredit what we say.
On 5/3/2024 4:11 AM, D wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 5/2/2024 6:28 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 2/05/2024 8:57 am, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 10:58 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
On 1/05/2024 1:41 pm, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:09 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:Yeah, "Who knows?!" Is faith causal? I don't believe that it is, >>>>>>> which, in my opinion, makes faith pointless.
On 4/30/2024 9:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:46 AM, Skeeter wrote:you can read it all after you go flat dead into the ground with >>>>>>>>>> nothing
In article <v0nrka$1m0et$3@dont-email.me>,
Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
says...
On 4/28/2024 11:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> level of ...beliefs.
Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confident that there is a God.
They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No atheist thinks this way. Have your read Professor Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins'
The God Delusion?
Dawn
If all you read is negative by atheists then your mind can not >>>>>>>>>>>> grasp the
possibility.
I'm delighted to read anything by anyone, religious or not, and >>>>>>>>>>> for that matter, on any topic espousing any position. Of course, >>>>>>>>>>> there is only so much time in any given day.
Dawn
What's the alternative? Fantasy??
Dawn
the alternative is just like yours , who knows what will happen after >>>>>>>
Dawn
You can't live without faith in something, you silly girl! Faith in a >>>>>> "nothing" is about as ridiculous as it gets, though.
Michael,
Define "faith".
Dawn
Faith is trusting in someone or something.
And you couldn't so much as clean your teeth without it.
Everything is a belief and then you put your faith in that belief or you >>>> do not...but either way, it is faith.
You have now been edumacated.
Sounds reasonable! As an atheist, I suppose that I *do* have faith, just >>> not faith in God, Jesus (who I think was crazy), invisible unicorns, the >>> FSM, fairies, etc.
Dawn
Actually, when you look at it with a bit more thought, it is completely
unreasonable. G.E. Moore proved that there is a physical world and people
who believe the world is an illusion, generally seem to be feeling genuine >> pain when hit over the head with a rock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
Let us also remember that the burden of proof falls on the one who beliefs >> in something else than the world.
But there is a darker side to the erroneous belief that everything is a
belief, and that is that conversation, science and us talking becomes
impossible. Facts and the world exists, and all it takes to realize it is
to look out the window. If that was not a fact, any discussion would be
pointless because it would deteriorate into a jumble of beliefs, and there >> would ultimate be no point since I can counter any argument with "it is my >> belief".
So the belief that everything is a belief, leads to nothing and is an
extremely unproductive belief.
Well stated!
Dawn
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:50:39 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id <1LednWR_pcz1Ya77nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
and the third person
There is no third person before live birth.
Conception comes before birth, ask anyone.
Irrelevant. In some cultures in the past babies were not
named until they were one year old due to the high infant
mortality rate.
If a fetus is a person can it be counted in a census? Is it
a tax deduction? Is it a citizen? Of where? Does it need
a passport?
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two
murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive!
Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two
murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive!
Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person
person
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow,
figure, personage, character, type, sort, beggar, cookie, customer, critter, bunny, fella, bloke,
chap, bod, geezer, gent, guy, gal, dude, hombre, body,
'body'
If you kill a pregnant women you charged with two murders.
two persons, two bodies.
Right now there are 1 million woman, pregnant women and children in Rafah...
you don't actually believe there are a million hamas guys hiding behind each one do you?
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:50:39 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<1LednWR_pcz1Ya77nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
and the third person
There is no third person before live birth.
Conception comes before birth, ask anyone.
Irrelevant. In some cultures in the past babies were not
named until they were one year old due to the high infant
mortality rate.
If a fetus is a person can it be counted in a census? Is it
a tax deduction? Is it a citizen? Of where? Does it need
a passport?
a citizen? the fetus 'occupies' a place on earth
Albert Einstein said he was a citizen of the earth...
but i don't know how to verify earth to you.
i might find for you 'a blue dot' somewhere in space..
but i don't see the letters e-a-r-t-h on it, so
i'll have to keep trying to see if i can verify if
an earth exist.
wat about if i'm standing on the moon and i see
a BIG blue dot, would that help?
On Sun, 05 May 2024 11:14:04 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6637CC6C.20E0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:50:39 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<1LednWR_pcz1Ya77nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
and the third person
There is no third person before live birth.
Conception comes before birth, ask anyone.
Irrelevant. In some cultures in the past babies were not
named until they were one year old due to the high infant
mortality rate.
If a fetus is a person can it be counted in a census? Is it
a tax deduction? Is it a citizen? Of where? Does it need
a passport?
a citizen? the fetus 'occupies' a place on earth
A citizen is a recognized legal member of a particular
country.
Albert Einstein said he was a citizen of the earth...
So what? Did he decide the qualifications?
but i don't know how to verify earth to you.
i might find for you 'a blue dot' somewhere in space..
but i don't see the letters e-a-r-t-h on it, so
i'll have to keep trying to see if i can verify if
an earth exist.
wat about if i'm standing on the moon and i see
a BIG blue dot, would that help?
The Earth has no one formal political structure to grant
citizenship to anyone.
One could just as properly claim to be a citizen of the
galaxy - for what it's worth.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.I take issue with that. I have nothing to do with any part
of any religion.
A statement that something does not exist would require
evidence of a negative, which is almost impossible to
provide.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
My default position is that as a
result no god exists. Since this is a binary issue to take
the default position that a god does exist would require I
also take the position that vampires, dragons, elves,
werewolves, shape changers, super heroes, and all sorts of
other mythical characters must also exist.
--
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.I take issue with that. I have nothing to do with any part
of any religion.
A statement that something does not exist would require
evidence of a negative, which is almost impossible to
provide.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
ah, so you admit there is evidence, which there is, as we've discussed. >saying no 'valid' evidence IYO is fine.
My default position is that as a
result no god exists. Since this is a binary issue to take
the default position that a god does exist would require I
also take the position that vampires, dragons, elves,
werewolves, shape changers, super heroes, and all sorts of
other mythical characters must also exist.
I don't follow your reasoning. each proposition can be considered >independently. I don't see why if someone doesn't believe in God, they
also have to not believe in werewolves or vampires.
surely
anything/everything should be considered on it's merits. ie. what
evidence is there and the likelihood of it supporting reality. plus the
fact of individual freedom to believe. someone can not believe in
something, however strong the evidence for it is, and still believe in >something ridiculous.
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:46:56 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <l9qnk0F41ujU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.I take issue with that. I have nothing to do with any part
of any religion.
A statement that something does not exist would require
evidence of a negative, which is almost impossible to
provide.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
ah, so you admit there is evidence, which there is, as we've discussed.
saying no 'valid' evidence IYO is fine.
The only such evidence is so defined by the observer and not
necessarily accepted by anyone else. I accept no such
evidence as being valid since none of it has any independent
verification.
My default position is that as a
result no god exists. Since this is a binary issue to take
the default position that a god does exist would require I
also take the position that vampires, dragons, elves,
werewolves, shape changers, super heroes, and all sorts of
other mythical characters must also exist.
I don't follow your reasoning. each proposition can be considered
independently. I don't see why if someone doesn't believe in God, they
also have to not believe in werewolves or vampires.
Since the amount of supporting evidence (valid unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence) is exactly the
same for each item and selection of one being more valid
than any other is arbitrary and based upon nothing more than
opinion.
surely
anything/everything should be considered on it's merits. ie. what
evidence is there and the likelihood of it supporting reality. plus the
fact of individual freedom to believe. someone can not believe in
something, however strong the evidence for it is, and still believe in
something ridiculous.
Anyone is free to believe anything they like without limit.
That alone does not validate any belief.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
On 6/05/2024 8:18 am, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2024 11:14:04 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637CC6C.20E0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:50:39 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<1LednWR_pcz1Ya77nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
and the third person
There is no third person before live birth.
Conception comes before birth, ask anyone.
Irrelevant. In some cultures in the past babies were not
named until they were one year old due to the high infant
mortality rate.
If a fetus is a person can it be counted in a census? Is it
a tax deduction? Is it a citizen? Of where? Does it need
a passport?
a citizen? the fetus 'occupies' a place on earth
A citizen is a recognized legal member of a particular
country.
And a fetus is a citizen, a recognized member of the human race
according to God.
Michael Christ
Albert Einstein said he was a citizen of the earth...
So what? Did he decide the qualifications?
but i don't know how to verify earth to you.
i might find for you 'a blue dot' somewhere in space..
but i don't see the letters e-a-r-t-h on it, so
i'll have to keep trying to see if i can verify if
an earth exist.
wat about if i'm standing on the moon and i see
a BIG blue dot, would that help?
The Earth has no one formal political structure to grant
citizenship to anyone.
One could just as properly claim to be a citizen of the
galaxy - for what it's worth.
On 6/05/2024 7:44 pm, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:46:56 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9qnk0F41ujU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.I take issue with that. I have nothing to do with any part
of any religion.
A statement that something does not exist would require
evidence of a negative, which is almost impossible to
provide.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
ah, so you admit there is evidence, which there is, as we've discussed.
saying no 'valid' evidence IYO is fine.
The only such evidence is so defined by the observer and not
necessarily accepted by anyone else. I accept no such
evidence as being valid since none of it has any independent
verification.
My default position is that as a
result no god exists. Since this is a binary issue to take
the default position that a god does exist would require I
also take the position that vampires, dragons, elves,
werewolves, shape changers, super heroes, and all sorts of
other mythical characters must also exist.
I don't follow your reasoning. each proposition can be considered
independently. I don't see why if someone doesn't believe in God, they
also have to not believe in werewolves or vampires.
Since the amount of supporting evidence (valid unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence) is exactly the
same for each item and selection of one being more valid
than any other is arbitrary and based upon nothing more than
opinion.
surely
anything/everything should be considered on it's merits. ie. what
evidence is there and the likelihood of it supporting reality. plus the
fact of individual freedom to believe. someone can not believe in
something, however strong the evidence for it is, and still believe in
something ridiculous.
Anyone is free to believe anything they like without limit.
That alone does not validate any belief.
Of course not, validation belongs to God.
No, Tilly, that is not you.
Michael Christ
On Fri, 03 May 2024 09:19:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66350E8E.7D2F@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Of course there is a God...
but God doesn't leave
evidence for just a
select few to see..
God leaves
evidence for everyone
to see...
even a 3 year old.
The evidence that
God exist is
almost certaintly
overwhelming!
I'll give you one example.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from an unverified source.
Is there any evidence
that an earth exist????
The existence of Earth is only evidence that Earth exists.
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 03 May 2024 09:19:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66350E8E.7D2F@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Of course there is a God...
but God doesn't leave
evidence for just a
select few to see..
God leaves
evidence for everyone
to see...
even a 3 year old.
The evidence that
God exist is
almost certaintly
overwhelming!
I'll give you one example.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from an unverified source.
Is there any evidence
that an earth exist????
The existence of Earth is only evidence that Earth exists.
It appears you believe the earth exists.
I'm just doing a reverse engineering...
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
How about "the heavens"? ...that would be the sky, our sun, the stars, moon and other planets.
Does "the heavens" exist??
I'm counting on you being a verified source...
(you already verified the earth exists)
On Mon, 06 May 2024 08:35:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6638F8B4.4C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 03 May 2024 09:19:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66350E8E.7D2F@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Of course there is a God...
but God doesn't leave
evidence for just a
select few to see..
God leaves
evidence for everyone
to see...
even a 3 year old.
The evidence that
God exist is
almost certaintly
overwhelming!
I'll give you one example.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from an unverified source.
Is there any evidence
that an earth exist????
The existence of Earth is only evidence that Earth exists.
It appears you believe the earth exists.
There is verification of such existence.
I'm just doing a reverse engineering...
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from unverified source.
How about "the heavens"? ...that would be the sky, our sun, the stars, moon and other planets.
Nope. You are talking about the universe.
Does "the heavens" exist??
The universe does, as independently proven.
I'm counting on you being a verified source...
(you already verified the earth exists)
Sorry. I have personally proven nothing and thus cannot
verify anything.
On Mon, 6 May 2024 20:10:59 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1aabj$2eehl$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 6/05/2024 7:44 pm, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:46:56 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9qnk0F41ujU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:21 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6631A541.5B91@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An atheist is a ...very religious nonbeliever.I take issue with that. I have nothing to do with any part
of any religion.
A statement that something does not exist would require
evidence of a negative, which is almost impossible to
provide.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
ah, so you admit there is evidence, which there is, as we've discussed. >>>> saying no 'valid' evidence IYO is fine.
The only such evidence is so defined by the observer and not
necessarily accepted by anyone else. I accept no such
evidence as being valid since none of it has any independent
verification.
My default position is that as a
result no god exists. Since this is a binary issue to take
the default position that a god does exist would require I
also take the position that vampires, dragons, elves,
werewolves, shape changers, super heroes, and all sorts of
other mythical characters must also exist.
I don't follow your reasoning. each proposition can be considered
independently. I don't see why if someone doesn't believe in God, they >>>> also have to not believe in werewolves or vampires.
Since the amount of supporting evidence (valid unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence) is exactly the
same for each item and selection of one being more valid
than any other is arbitrary and based upon nothing more than
opinion.
surely
anything/everything should be considered on it's merits. ie. what
evidence is there and the likelihood of it supporting reality. plus the >>>> fact of individual freedom to believe. someone can not believe in
something, however strong the evidence for it is, and still believe in >>>> something ridiculous.
Anyone is free to believe anything they like without limit.
That alone does not validate any belief.
Of course not, validation belongs to God.
How is this done? By rubber stamp?
No, Tilly, that is not you.
Michael Christ
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 08:35:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6638F8B4.4C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 03 May 2024 09:19:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66350E8E.7D2F@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Of course there is a God...
but God doesn't leave
evidence for just a
select few to see..
God leaves
evidence for everyone
to see...
even a 3 year old.
The evidence that
God exist is
almost certaintly
overwhelming!
I'll give you one example.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from an unverified source.
Is there any evidence
that an earth exist????
The existence of Earth is only evidence that Earth exists.
It appears you believe the earth exists.
There is verification of such existence.
I'm just doing a reverse engineering...
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from unverified source.
How about "the heavens"? ...that would be the sky, our sun, the stars, moon and other planets.
Nope. You are talking about the universe.
Does "the heavens" exist??
The universe does, as independently proven.
Sorry. I have personally proven nothing and thus cannot
I'm counting on you being a verified source...
(you already verified the earth exists)
verify anything.
But you said: "There is verification of such existence."
Are you saying you don't trust the ..."verification"????
i'm confused.
I don't know if you are 'aware' that you sound very much like a ..God fearing person.
On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:41:29 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66393269.4913@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 08:35:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6638F8B4.4C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 03 May 2024 09:19:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66350E8E.7D2F@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Of course there is a God...
but God doesn't leave
evidence for just a
select few to see..
God leaves
evidence for everyone
to see...
even a 3 year old.
The evidence that
God exist is
almost certaintly
overwhelming!
I'll give you one example.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from an unverified source.
Is there any evidence
that an earth exist????
The existence of Earth is only evidence that Earth exists.
It appears you believe the earth exists.
There is verification of such existence.
I'm just doing a reverse engineering...
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from unverified source.
How about "the heavens"? ...that would be the sky, our sun, the stars, moon and other planets.
Nope. You are talking about the universe.
Does "the heavens" exist??
The universe does, as independently proven.
Sorry. I have personally proven nothing and thus cannot
I'm counting on you being a verified source...
(you already verified the earth exists)
verify anything.
But you said: "There is verification of such existence."
I said I am aware of it. I did not say I verified it
personally.
Are you saying you don't trust the ..."verification"????
No.
i'm confused.
I don't know if you are 'aware' that you sound very much like a ..God fearing person.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Whatever it takes - Stop the Democrats. Or the Dims
as I prefer to call them
The most dangerous enemies the United States has:
Biden the Senile Bastard and his Bitch and
supported by the Sluts and Pimps including
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker. They
have stepped over the line and are working against
the country and what it stands for.
Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
Stop the Green Raw Deal! I dare call it treason.
Go WOKE. Go broke.
CRT - Criminals Recruiting Thugs
DEI - Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy
End all social engineering programs.
I don't know how Comical Karine can still hold a straight
face with what she has to say.
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
It is the business of no one else.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion.
She want's it. All else is irrelevant
I support a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
create
/kre'at/
verb
bring (something) into existence. >https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+created
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:41:29 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66393269.4913@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 08:35:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6638F8B4.4C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 03 May 2024 09:19:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66350E8E.7D2F@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Of course there is a God...
but God doesn't leave
evidence for just a
select few to see..
God leaves
evidence for everyone
to see...
even a 3 year old.
The evidence that
God exist is
almost certaintly
overwhelming!
I'll give you one example.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from an unverified source.
Is there any evidence
that an earth exist????
The existence of Earth is only evidence that Earth exists.
It appears you believe the earth exists.
There is verification of such existence.
I'm just doing a reverse engineering...
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Quote from unverified source.
How about "the heavens"? ...that would be the sky, our sun, the stars, moon and other planets.
Nope. You are talking about the universe.
Does "the heavens" exist??
The universe does, as independently proven.
Sorry. I have personally proven nothing and thus cannot
I'm counting on you being a verified source...
(you already verified the earth exists)
verify anything.
But you said: "There is verification of such existence."
I said I am aware of it. I did not say I verified it
personally.
Are you saying you don't trust the ..."verification"????
No.
i'm confused.
I don't know if you are 'aware' that you sound very much like a ..God fearing person.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
On 5/5/24 19:11, Michael Christ wrote:
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God,
Take this shit of yours out of the sci.physics forum. It is not our
fault your Dad fucked you in the ass each afternoon when you got home
from the middle school.
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two
murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive!
Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person
per·son
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
But when exactly does a human being exist?
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to
turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten
Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>> murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive!
Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person
person
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual what? I have individual potted plant growing in my garden.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
What constitutes a human person?
But when exactly does a human being exist?
At conception, of course.
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
you wrote:
"creation took place"
That means you agree creation took place.
What's next on my reverse engineering list?
You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created...
Next is God...God created
the heavens and the earth.
What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God?
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
you wrote:
"creation took place"
"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
occurred.
That means you agree creation took place.
Wrong. See above.
What's next on my reverse engineering list?
You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created...
Nope. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
Next is God...God created
the heavens and the earth.
If anything created anything the evidence indicates it could
have been space hamsters, beings from another dimension, or
a bored teenager with magical skills. Or something else.
IOW, there is no evidence to support anything.
I can keep repeating I have yet to see any valid evidence
supporting the existence of any god as long as you insist on
referring to one.
What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God?
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the
creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral
authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit
worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a
deity.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
I have seen no unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and
credible evidence to support the existence of such an
entity.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
you wrote:
"creation took place"
"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
occurred.
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
you wrote:
"creation took place"
"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
occurred.
Are we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
I know exactly where your mind is at...
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
I know exactly where your mind is at...
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
I know exactly where your mind is at...
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
you wrote:
"creation took place"
"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
occurred.
That means you agree creation took place.
Wrong. See above.
What's next on my reverse engineering list?
You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created...
Nope. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
Next is God...God created
the heavens and the earth.
If anything created anything the evidence indicates it could
have been space hamsters, beings from another dimension, or
a bored teenager with magical skills. Or something else.
IOW, there is no evidence to support anything.
I can keep repeating I have yet to see any valid evidence
supporting the existence of any god as long as you insist on
referring to one.
What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God?
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the
creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral
authority; the supreme being.
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike Colangelo
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id <zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>> murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive!
Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person >>>>
per·son
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden.
You are now being argumentative.
An individual human being,
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's
alive!"
"the porter was the last person to see her"
What constitutes a human person?
Good question.
But when exactly does a human being exist?
At conception, of course.
Is a fetus a person?
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, God
created the heavens and
the earth.'
You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
you wrote:
"creation took place"
"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
occurred.
That means you agree creation took place.
Wrong. See above.
What's next on my reverse engineering list?
You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created...
Nope. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
Next is God...God created
the heavens and the earth.
If anything created anything the evidence indicates it could
have been space hamsters, beings from another dimension, or
a bored teenager with magical skills. Or something else.
IOW, there is no evidence to support anything.
I can keep repeating I have yet to see any valid evidence
supporting the existence of any god as long as you insist on
referring to one.
1.
What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God? >>
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the
creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral
authority; the supreme being.
I asked you..."God" mean to you?, you define the word...God?
and You picked Your Christian God.
So, you are a die hard self-hating Christian!
Typical atheists.
Your girlfriend Christian too, right?
It's okay, Charles Darnwin is a self-hating Christian too!
But I had prefer if you had gave me YOUR definition of God, not Google's.
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
teach me.
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
On 5/8/2024 2:47 AM, Attila wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike Colangelo
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:You are now being argumentative.
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cld
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
-----------------
--
yes there is, the father.
There is the fourth person...
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>>> murders.
The charge would vary according to local law. In some
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive! >>>>>>
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person >>>>>
person
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden. >>
Fuck off. That's all you're ever doing here.
An individual human being,
tautology
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's
alive!"
Cattle have all that, and they are not persons.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
What constitutes a human person?
Good question.
You can't answer it.
But when exactly does a human being exist?
At conception, of course.
Is a fetus a person?
Not a complete person.
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
So, understand...I can only go by Your own words...
You wrote: "It would mean nothing to me."
Is that correct? You wrote: It would mean nothing to me.
On Thu, 09 May 2024 10:46:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663D0BF3.62E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
So, understand...I can only go by Your own words...
You wrote: "It would mean nothing to me."
Is that correct? You wrote: It would mean nothing to me.
What is your point? I never think of any god except when I
post here and certainly don't waste time trying to think up
some esoteric definition of the term. It just isn't that
important.
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 10:46:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663D0BF3.62E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
So, understand...I can only go by Your own words...
You wrote: "It would mean nothing to me."
Is that correct? You wrote: It would mean nothing to me.
What is your point? I never think of any god except when I
post here and certainly don't waste time trying to think up
some esoteric definition of the term. It just isn't that
important.
You *just* gave everyone YOUR definition of God.
Here is your definition of God: "It would mean nothing to me."
"It" refers to God...
"..would mean nothing to me."
means, God means Nothing to you.
So, does God mean something to you, or
God means Nothing to you?
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:45:31 -0700, Mike Colangelo
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id <Uc6%N.11059$uO7b.4346@fx05.iad> wrote:
On 5/8/2024 2:47 AM, Attila wrote:If you look above you will see I was repeating something
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike ColangeloFuck off. That's all you're ever doing here.
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The StarmakerAn individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden. >>> You are now being argumentative.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:The charge would vary according to local law. In some
Attila wrote:There is the fourth person...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id
<SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
--
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>>>> murders.
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive! >>>>>>> Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person >>>>>>
per·son
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual human being,tautology
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it'sCattle have all that, and they are not persons.
alive!"
that was said by someone else. I challenged the statement
and was ignored.
The origional was posted by The Starmaker
Again I did not make the origional statement.You can't answer it.Good question.What constitutes a human person?"the porter was the last person to see her"
In fact, you copied a part of a definition posted by The
Starmaker.
Historically a person was a human being, which is a
socio-legal term that requires species human and live birth.
This is reflected in the laws that differentiate between a
fetus and a legal person.
So someone can be a little bit of a person but not a wholeNot a complete person.Is a fetus a person?But when exactly does a human being exist?At conception, of course.
person? Just what is the difference between an incomplete
person and a complete person?
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Did you miss the " other monotheistic religions" part? I
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
Wrong. See above.
That means you agree creation took place.
Nope. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
What's next on my reverse engineering list?
You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created...
If anything created anything the evidence indicates it could
Next is God...God created
the heavens and the earth.
have been space hamsters, beings from another dimension, or
a bored teenager with magical skills. Or something else.
IOW, there is no evidence to support anything.
I can keep repeating I have yet to see any valid evidence
supporting the existence of any god as long as you insist on
referring to one.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the
What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God? >>> 1.
creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral
authority; the supreme being.
I asked you..."God" mean to you?, you define the word...God?
did not include those with multi-gods (such as Hind and
ancient Egyptian because I have seen few advocates here.
Not mine.
and You picked Your Christian God.
So, you are a die hard self-hating Christian!Is? I thought he was dead.
Typical atheists.
Your girlfriend Christian too, right?
It's okay, Charles Darnwin is a self-hating Christian too!
I speak standard English and use definitions that are common
But I had prefer if you had gave me YOUR definition of God, not Google's.
to most English speaking people. If I posted in Klingon I
doubt may people would know what I was saying.
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
Sorry. I don't attempt the impossible.
teach me.
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
definitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Did you miss the " other monotheistic religions" part? I
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
Wrong. See above.
That means you agree creation took place.
Nope. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
What's next on my reverse engineering list?
You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created...
If anything created anything the evidence indicates it could
Next is God...God created
the heavens and the earth.
have been space hamsters, beings from another dimension, or
a bored teenager with magical skills. Or something else.
IOW, there is no evidence to support anything.
I can keep repeating I have yet to see any valid evidence
supporting the existence of any god as long as you insist on
referring to one.
1.
What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God?
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the
creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral
authority; the supreme being.
I asked you..."God" mean to you?, you define the word...God?
did not include those with multi-gods (such as Hind and
ancient Egyptian because I have seen few advocates here.
Not mine.
and You picked Your Christian God.
So, you are a die hard self-hating Christian!Is? I thought he was dead.
Typical atheists.
Your girlfriend Christian too, right?
It's okay, Charles Darnwin is a self-hating Christian too!
to most English speaking people. If I posted in Klingon I
But I had prefer if you had gave me YOUR definition of God, not Google's. >> I speak standard English and use definitions that are common
doubt may people would know what I was saying.
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
exactly. it's not for atheists to define God.
Sorry. I don't attempt the impossible.
teach me.
:)
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:45:31 -0700, Mike Colangelo
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<Uc6%N.11059$uO7b.4346@fx05.iad> wrote:
On 5/8/2024 2:47 AM, Attila wrote:If you look above you will see I was repeating something
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike ColangeloFuck off. That's all you're ever doing here.
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The StarmakerAn individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden. >>>> You are now being argumentative.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:The charge would vary according to local law. In some
Attila wrote:There is the fourth person...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
--
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>>>>> murders.
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive! >>>>>>>> Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person >>>>>>>
person
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual human being,tautology
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it'sCattle have all that, and they are not persons.
alive!"
that was said by someone else. I challenged the statement
and was ignored.
The origional was posted by The Starmaker
Again I did not make the origional statement.You can't answer it.Good question.What constitutes a human person?"the porter was the last person to see her"
In fact, you copied a part of a definition posted by The
Starmaker.
Historically a person was a human being, which is a
socio-legal term that requires species human and live birth.
This is reflected in the laws that differentiate between a
fetus and a legal person.
So someone can be a little bit of a person but not a wholeNot a complete person.Is a fetus a person?But when exactly does a human being exist?At conception, of course.
person? Just what is the difference between an incomplete
person and a complete person?
a fetus could be considered an incomplete person or human
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximusdefinitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>> yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:33:20 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <la5br1Fmf3cU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:But not yet a person or a human, just as an acorn is not yet
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:45:31 -0700, Mike Colangeloa fetus could be considered an incomplete person or human
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<Uc6%N.11059$uO7b.4346@fx05.iad> wrote:
On 5/8/2024 2:47 AM, Attila wrote:If you look above you will see I was repeating something
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike ColangeloFuck off. That's all you're ever doing here.
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:You are now being argumentative.
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The StarmakerAn individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The StarmakerWhat do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The StarmakerA person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive! >>>>>>>>> Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:The charge would vary according to local law. In some
Attila wrote:There is the fourth person...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
--
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>>>>>> murders.
places two murders and in some places one.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person
per·son
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual human being,tautology
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it'sCattle have all that, and they are not persons.
alive!"
that was said by someone else. I challenged the statement
and was ignored.
The origional was posted by The Starmaker
Again I did not make the origional statement.You can't answer it.Good question.What constitutes a human person?"the porter was the last person to see her"
In fact, you copied a part of a definition posted by The
Starmaker.
Historically a person was a human being, which is a
socio-legal term that requires species human and live birth.
This is reflected in the laws that differentiate between a
fetus and a legal person.
So someone can be a little bit of a person but not a wholeNot a complete person.Is a fetus a person?But when exactly does a human being exist?At conception, of course.
person? Just what is the difference between an incomplete
person and a complete person?
an oak tree and an egg is not yet a chicken.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:28:25 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <la5bhrFmf3cU2@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Did you miss the " other monotheistic religions" part? I
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
Next in reverse engineering is
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not
yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
Wrong. See above.
That means you agree creation took place.
Nope. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
What's next on my reverse engineering list?
You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created...
If anything created anything the evidence indicates it could
Next is God...God created
the heavens and the earth.
have been space hamsters, beings from another dimension, or
a bored teenager with magical skills. Or something else.
IOW, there is no evidence to support anything.
I can keep repeating I have yet to see any valid evidence
supporting the existence of any god as long as you insist on
referring to one.
1.
What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God?
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the
creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral
authority; the supreme being.
I asked you..."God" mean to you?, you define the word...God?
did not include those with multi-gods (such as Hind and
ancient Egyptian because I have seen few advocates here.
Not mine.
and You picked Your Christian God.
So, you are a die hard self-hating Christian!Is? I thought he was dead.
Typical atheists.
Your girlfriend Christian too, right?
It's okay, Charles Darnwin is a self-hating Christian too!
to most English speaking people. If I posted in Klingon I
But I had prefer if you had gave me YOUR definition of God, not Google's. >> I speak standard English and use definitions that are common
doubt may people would know what I was saying.
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
exactly. it's not for atheists to define God.
Why should we bother?
On Thu, 09 May 2024 14:23:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663D3ED8.181@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 10:46:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663D0BF3.62E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God... >> >>
So, understand...I can only go by Your own words...
You wrote: "It would mean nothing to me."
Is that correct? You wrote: It would mean nothing to me.
What is your point? I never think of any god except when I
post here and certainly don't waste time trying to think up
some esoteric definition of the term. It just isn't that
important.
You *just* gave everyone YOUR definition of God.
Here is your definition of God: "It would mean nothing to me."
That is hardly a definition.
I would point out the subject being addressed was
definition. Therefore "it" is obviously the said
definition. It definition means nothing to me because I
don't consider the subject "god" important enough to bother
with.
"It" refers to God...
"..would mean nothing to me."
means, God means Nothing to you.
So, does God mean something to you, or
God means Nothing to you?
Nothing to me. I have never kept it a secret.
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:33:20 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5br1Fmf3cU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:But not yet a person or a human, just as an acorn is not yet
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:45:31 -0700, Mike Colangeloa fetus could be considered an incomplete person or human
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<Uc6%N.11059$uO7b.4346@fx05.iad> wrote:
On 5/8/2024 2:47 AM, Attila wrote:If you look above you will see I was repeating something
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike ColangeloFuck off. That's all you're ever doing here.
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:You are now being argumentative.
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The StarmakerAn individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The StarmakerWhat do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The StarmakerA person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive! >>>>>>>>>> Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:The charge would vary according to local law. In some >>>>>>>>>>>> places two murders and in some places one.
Attila wrote:There is the fourth person...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
--
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>>>>>>> murders.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person
person
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual human being,tautology
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it'sCattle have all that, and they are not persons.
alive!"
that was said by someone else. I challenged the statement
and was ignored.
The origional was posted by The Starmaker
Again I did not make the origional statement.You can't answer it.Good question.What constitutes a human person?"the porter was the last person to see her"
In fact, you copied a part of a definition posted by The
Starmaker.
Historically a person was a human being, which is a
socio-legal term that requires species human and live birth.
This is reflected in the laws that differentiate between a
fetus and a legal person.
So someone can be a little bit of a person but not a wholeNot a complete person.Is a fetus a person?But when exactly does a human being exist?At conception, of course.
person? Just what is the difference between an incomplete
person and a complete person?
an oak tree and an egg is not yet a chicken.
do you believe late term abortion is ok?
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:33:20 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <la5br1Fmf3cU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:45:31 -0700, Mike Colangelo
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<Uc6%N.11059$uO7b.4346@fx05.iad> wrote:
On 5/8/2024 2:47 AM, Attila wrote:If you look above you will see I was repeating something
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike ColangeloFuck off. That's all you're ever doing here.
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:You are now being argumentative.
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The StarmakerAn individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:The charge would vary according to local law. In some
Attila wrote:There is the fourth person...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
--
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>>>>>> murders.
places two murders and in some places one.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive! >>>>>>>>> Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person
per·son
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual human being,tautology
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it'sCattle have all that, and they are not persons.
alive!"
that was said by someone else. I challenged the statement
and was ignored.
The origional was posted by The Starmaker
Again I did not make the origional statement.You can't answer it.Good question.What constitutes a human person?"the porter was the last person to see her"
In fact, you copied a part of a definition posted by The
Starmaker.
Historically a person was a human being, which is a
socio-legal term that requires species human and live birth.
This is reflected in the laws that differentiate between a
fetus and a legal person.
So someone can be a little bit of a person but not a wholeNot a complete person.Is a fetus a person?But when exactly does a human being exist?At conception, of course.
person? Just what is the difference between an incomplete
person and a complete person?
a fetus could be considered an incomplete person or human
But not yet a person or a human, just as an acorn is not yet
an oak tree and an egg is not yet a chicken.
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximusdefinitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>>>>>>> them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>>>>>>> we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>>> yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
I believe the evidence is the lack of evidence, and the rationality
involved. why suppose there is an afterlife and a soul? it's only a
theistic postulate, and how religion derives it's power.
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 14:23:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663D3ED8.181@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 10:46:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663D0BF3.62E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God... >> >> >>
So, understand...I can only go by Your own words...
You wrote: "It would mean nothing to me."
Is that correct? You wrote: It would mean nothing to me.
What is your point? I never think of any god except when I
post here and certainly don't waste time trying to think up
some esoteric definition of the term. It just isn't that
important.
You *just* gave everyone YOUR definition of God.
Here is your definition of God: "It would mean nothing to me."
That is hardly a definition.
I would point out the subject being addressed was
definition. Therefore "it" is obviously the said
definition. It definition means nothing to me because I
don't consider the subject "god" important enough to bother
with.
"It" refers to God...
"..would mean nothing to me."
means, God means Nothing to you.
So, does God mean something to you, or
God means Nothing to you?
Nothing to me. I have never kept it a secret.
I just needed verification of your own words from you before i move forward...
You said: God means nothing to you. you wrote also "mean nothing to me"
God means nothing to you is fine. You just said 'without' awarness...
that your religion is God
you believe God created the universe
you believe God created the heavens and the earth.
You believe 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
without you being aware of it.
So, I'll make you aware of it now....
I'm sure you heard of 'A Universe from Nothing'.
You said: God means nothing to you.
So, 'A Universe from Nothing'. ...Nothing is defined God.
The word Nothing and God both mean the samething.
A Universe from Nothing - A Universe from God.
God means Nothing
Nothing means God.
Lawrence M. Krauss wrote a book entittled: "A Universe from Nothing"
Nothing in Klaus religion means...God.
Since, according to Klaus religion, God is no thing.
also according to Klaus religion
God is also known as ayin "ay-yin") which means...Nothingness.
So, the title of Krauss book "A Universe from Nothing" translates to:
A Universe from God
or
God is Nothing
So, when yous say the universes comes from nothing...you're talking religion, not science.
"yesh me-Ayin", meaning "something from nothing",
Saadia Gaon, a prominent 9th-century rabbi and the first great Jewish philosopher, argues
that "the world came into existence out of nothingness".
This thesis was first translated into Hebrew as "yesh me-Ayin", meaning "something from nothing", in the 11th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh
In other words, Attila is not an atheist, he is instead...of the Jewish religion.
God means Nothing
a universe from nothing.
Attila God's name is Ayin.
God means Nothing -Attila
https://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2013/07/gleanings-kabbalah-physics.html
Do you like mustard with your knish?
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without
them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not
we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>> yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
definitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
On 10/05/2024 3:05 pm, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure >>>>>>>>>> for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>>>>>>> them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>>>>>>> we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>>> yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
definitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
So you agree about what you have no evidence about.
:-).
You idiots!
I am not going to say "stupid contradictors." Oh shit, it is just too
hard; you stupid contradictors.
:-).
Michael Christ
On Fri, 10 May 2024 15:51:41 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id <la5qvfFokmrU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:As I have previous stated there is nothing wrong with any
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, MaximusI believe the evidence is the lack of evidence, and the rationality
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximusdefinitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure >>>>>>>>>>> for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>>>>>>>> them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>>>>>>>> we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified >>>>>>>>>>> source as if is relevant. Why is that?
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such >>>>>>>>>>> possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>>>> yet known.
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends... >>>>>>>>
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
involved. why suppose there is an afterlife and a soul? it's only a
theistic postulate, and how religion derives it's power.
belief. The problems arise when someone tries to assert a
belief as if it is verified fact.
Too many people think their beliefs are factual and try to
convince others of this.
On 10/05/2024 3:05 pm, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure
for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>>>>>>> them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>>>>>>> we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified
created the heavens and
the earth.'
source as if is relevant. Why is that?
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>>> yet known.
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends...
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
definitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
So you agree about what you have no evidence about.
:-).
You idiots!
I am not going to say "stupid contradictors." Oh shit, it is just too
hard; you stupid contradictors.
:-).
Michael Christ
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 15:51:41 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5qvfFokmrU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:As I have previous stated there is nothing wrong with any
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, MaximusI believe the evidence is the lack of evidence, and the rationality
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximusdefinitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure >>>>>>>>>>>> for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>>>>>>>>> them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>>>>>>>>> we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified >>>>>>>>>>>> source as if is relevant. Why is that?
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such >>>>>>>>>>>> possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>>>>> yet known.
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends... >>>>>>>>>
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves.. >>>>>>>>>
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
involved. why suppose there is an afterlife and a soul? it's only a
theistic postulate, and how religion derives it's power.
belief. The problems arise when someone tries to assert a
belief as if it is verified fact.
Too many people think their beliefs are factual and try to
convince others of this.
too many here in fact
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:33:20 +1000, Maximusbut the oak tree was never pregnant , neither was the chicken
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5br1Fmf3cU3@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:45:31 -0700, Mike Colangelo
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<Uc6%N.11059$uO7b.4346@fx05.iad> wrote:
On 5/8/2024 2:47 AM, Attila wrote:If you look above you will see I was repeating something
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:15:59 -0700, Mike ColangeloFuck off. That's all you're ever doing here.
<air@vatican_.con> in alt.atheism with message-id
<zME_N.97520$lwqa.80206@fx18.iad> wrote:
On 5/5/2024 3:14 PM, Attila wrote:You are now being argumentative.
On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:55:58 -0700, The StarmakerAn individual what? I have individual potted plants growing in my garden.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6637C82E.65EA@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 09:21:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6633BD82.2D97@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:11:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <6633044D.3487@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:The charge would vary according to local law. In some >>>>>>>>>>>> places two murders and in some places one.
Attila wrote:There is the fourth person...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:43:25 +0100, cldyes there is, the father.
<clowd@nimbus.net.inv> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <SOqcnQWwu_GqBq_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Attila wrote:There is no third person before live birth.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximusand the third person
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Did the last sane person leaving California remember to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off the lights? Did he do the same for the Rotten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple?
Abortion should be like any other medical procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------
--
If a husband muders his pregnant wife, he gets charged for ...two >>>>>>>>>>>>> murders.
A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it's alive! >>>>>>>>>> Reference please. Or is this your opinion?
What do you mean by "Reference"? It's the definition. (you don't even know if the earth exist!)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+person
person
/'p?rs(?)n/
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.
An individual human being,tautology
" A person is a 'body'...eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs..it'sCattle have all that, and they are not persons.
alive!"
that was said by someone else. I challenged the statement
and was ignored.
The origional was posted by The Starmaker
Again I did not make the origional statement.You can't answer it.Good question.What constitutes a human person?"the porter was the last person to see her"
In fact, you copied a part of a definition posted by The
Starmaker.
Historically a person was a human being, which is a
socio-legal term that requires species human and live birth.
This is reflected in the laws that differentiate between a
fetus and a legal person.
So someone can be a little bit of a person but not a wholeNot a complete person.Is a fetus a person?But when exactly does a human being exist?At conception, of course.
person? Just what is the difference between an incomplete
person and a complete person?
a fetus could be considered an incomplete person or human
But not yet a person or a human, just as an acorn is not yet
an oak tree and an egg is not yet a chicken.
palsing wrote:
Maximus wrote:
a fetus could be considered an incomplete person or human.
Does that mean I can claim a fetus as a dependant on my income taxes?
no because it's only 9 months
On Fri, 10 May 2024 00:26:18 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663DCC1A.5EEC@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 14:23:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663D3ED8.181@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 10:46:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663D0BF3.62E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God...
Why? It would mean nothing to me.
So, understand...I can only go by Your own words...
You wrote: "It would mean nothing to me."
Is that correct? You wrote: It would mean nothing to me.
What is your point? I never think of any god except when I
post here and certainly don't waste time trying to think up
some esoteric definition of the term. It just isn't that
important.
You *just* gave everyone YOUR definition of God.
Here is your definition of God: "It would mean nothing to me."
That is hardly a definition.
I would point out the subject being addressed was
definition. Therefore "it" is obviously the said
definition. It definition means nothing to me because I
don't consider the subject "god" important enough to bother
with.
"It" refers to God...
"..would mean nothing to me."
means, God means Nothing to you.
So, does God mean something to you, or
God means Nothing to you?
Nothing to me. I have never kept it a secret.
I just needed verification of your own words from you before i move forward...
You said: God means nothing to you. you wrote also "mean nothing to me"
God means nothing to you is fine. You just said 'without' awarness...
that your religion is God
you believe God created the universe
you believe God created the heavens and the earth.
You believe 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
without you being aware of it.
So, I'll make you aware of it now....
I'm sure you heard of 'A Universe from Nothing'.
You said: God means nothing to you.
So, 'A Universe from Nothing'. ...Nothing is defined God.
The word Nothing and God both mean the samething.
A Universe from Nothing - A Universe from God.
God means Nothing
Nothing means God.
Lawrence M. Krauss wrote a book entittled: "A Universe from Nothing"
Nothing in Klaus religion means...God.
Since, according to Klaus religion, God is no thing.
also according to Klaus religion
God is also known as ayin "ay-yin") which means...Nothingness.
So, the title of Krauss book "A Universe from Nothing" translates to:
A Universe from God
or
God is Nothing
So, when yous say the universes comes from nothing...you're talking religion, not science.
"yesh me-Ayin", meaning "something from nothing",
Saadia Gaon, a prominent 9th-century rabbi and the first great Jewish philosopher, argues
that "the world came into existence out of nothingness".
This thesis was first translated into Hebrew as "yesh me-Ayin", meaning "something from nothing", in the 11th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh
In other words, Attila is not an atheist, he is instead...of the Jewish religion.
God means Nothing
a universe from nothing.
Attila God's name is Ayin.
God means Nothing -Attila
https://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2013/07/gleanings-kabbalah-physics.html
Do you like mustard with your knish?
You remind me of Shakespeare. Much ado about nothing.
I suspect this is just another iteration of Rudy being the
ass he usually is. It really doesn't matter how you try to
reinterpret my statements to mean what you want them to
mean.
It doesn't change my position one iota.
I notice you removed the most accurate and important part of
my post (Why am I not surprised?) but I am happy to
reproduce it here.
But Jesus loves you.
Everyone else thinks you are an asshole.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:38:10 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1l0v3$19pfv$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/05/2024 3:05 pm, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure >>>>>>>>>>> for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>>>>>>>> them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>>>>>>>> we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified >>>>>>>>>>> source as if is relevant. Why is that?
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such >>>>>>>>>>> possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>>>> yet known.
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends... >>>>>>>>
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
definitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
So you agree about what you have no evidence about.
Sure I can. I have a right to an opinion or belief just
like anyone else.
:-).
You idiots!
I am not going to say "stupid contradictors." Oh shit, it is just too
hard; you stupid contradictors.
Still reading on a first grade level I see.
:-).
Michael Christ
Michael Christ wrote:
On 10/05/2024 3:05 pm, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:49 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la5ad5FmaaaU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 23:50:31 +1000, Maximus
<gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
<la42laFgid5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:It sounds like our opinions basically agree.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 21:12:05 -0700, The Starmakerhttps://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663C4D15.32A5@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Since I never said that. no.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The StarmakerAre we back to the earth doesn't exist in your mind again???
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Possible creation" I do not concede such creation
On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmakeryou wrote:
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Okay, back to my reverse engineering...They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and
you agree there was some verification for an
earth and the heavens (you call it the universe)
repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure >>>>>>>>>>> for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>>>>>>>> them.
And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>>>>>>>> we exist.
'In the beginning, GodYou keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified >>>>>>>>>>> source as if is relevant. Why is that?
created the heavens and
the earth.'
Since it is unverified it is useless.
Next in reverse engineering isNot necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such >>>>>>>>>>> possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>>>>>>>> yet known.
"created"
'...created the heavens and
the earth.'
Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth
was...
'created'???
"creation took place"
occurred.
I said there is no supporting evidence that the Earth was
created or that any god exists.
I will modify my Earth response since there is supported
evidence that it was created at some point from matter that
was not included in the sun. There is no reason to think
any "creator" was involved at any point.
I know exactly where your mind is at...Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
You walk into a movie theater 1 minute before the movie ends... >>>>>>>>
you walk in, sit down and everyone else gets up and leaves..
you stare at the blank screen.
dats it.
you stare at ...nothiness.
you died.
that I had before I was born.
definitely, but more than opinion. I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
I agree but I have no direct evidence either way.
So you agree about what you have no evidence about.
:-).
You idiots!
I am not going to say "stupid contradictors." Oh shit, it is just too
hard; you stupid contradictors.
:-).
where's your proof a soul and an afterlife exist?
Attila wrote:
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions
of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.”
- Mark Twain
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions
of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both brought
into existence.
And there is purpose, a reason for that, and there is meaning in that.
We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and our >being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are >born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created.
The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have
to deal with it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and >scientifically impossible.
Michael Christ
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions
of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.”
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both brought
into existence.
Speculation.
And there is purpose, a reason for that, and there is meaning in that.
Supporting evidence.
We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and our
being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are
born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created.
The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have
to deal with it.
That is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and
scientifically impossible.
Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.
Much appreciated.
Michael Christ
We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and our >>> being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are >>> born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created. >>> The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have
to deal with it.
That is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and
scientifically impossible.
Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.
Much appreciated.
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >...just people do.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:09:21 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1nn5i$1tont$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and our >>>> being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are >>>> born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created. >>>> The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have >>>> to deal with it.
That is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and
scientifically impossible.
Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.
Much appreciated.
Generally speaking one opinion is as good as another.
some opinions are better based than others basically they
are all pretty much equal in value.
Nobody asked you to masturbate TIN MAN
<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Notes%20On%20Possibility%20Of%20COVID%20Agent%20Provocateur.pdf>
<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Golden%20Calf%20Notes%2020240507.pdf>
Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> wrote:
Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.
Much appreciated.
Michael Christ
On 11/05/2024 11:51 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:09:21 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1nn5i$1tont$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and our >>>>> being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are >>>>> born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created. >>>>> The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have >>>>> to deal with it.
That is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and
scientifically impossible.
Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.
Much appreciated.
Generally speaking one opinion is as good as another.
"Generally," and let me guess who is judge of the evidence? :-).
Lord Attila?
While
some opinions are better based than others basically they
are all pretty much equal in value.
Waffle off, please, Goofy. Go talk to your brains trust equal, Maximus >Minimus. :-).
Michael Christ
On Sun, 12 May 2024 07:50:28 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1op76$28iod$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 11:51 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:09:21 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1nn5i$1tont$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and our >>>>>> being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are >>>>>> born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created. >>>>>> The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have >>>>>> to deal with it.
That is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and >>>>>> scientifically impossible.
Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.
Much appreciated.
Generally speaking one opinion is as good as another.
"Generally," and let me guess who is judge of the evidence? :-).
There is little or no evidence needed for an opinion.
Lord Attila?
While
some opinions are better based than others basically they
are all pretty much equal in value.
Waffle off, please, Goofy. Go talk to your brains trust equal, Maximus
Minimus. :-).
Michael Christ
On Sun, 12 May 2024 07:50:28 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1op76$28iod$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 11:51 pm, Attila wrote:There is little or no evidence needed for an opinion.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:09:21 +1000, Michael Christ"Generally," and let me guess who is judge of the evidence? :-).
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1nn5i$1tont$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
Generally speaking one opinion is as good as another.Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and our >>>>>> being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are >>>>>> born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created. >>>>>> The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have >>>>>> to deal with it.That is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and >>>>>> scientifically impossible.
Much appreciated.
Lord Attila?
While some opinions are better based than others basically theyWaffle off, please, Goofy. Go talk to your brains trust equal, Maximus
are all pretty much equal in value.
Minimus. :-).
Michael Christ
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 07:50:28 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1op76$28iod$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 11:51 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:09:21 +1000, Michael Christ"Generally," and let me guess who is judge of the evidence? :-).
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1nn5i$1tont$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
Generally speaking one opinion is as good as another.Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), >>>>>>> and ourThat is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after >>>>>>> you are
born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were
created.
The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now
you have
to deal with it.
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and >>>>>>> scientifically impossible.
Much appreciated.
There is little or no evidence needed for an opinion.
sadly you're attempting the impossible- trying to have a rational
discussion with someone who's not rational.
Lord Attila?
While some opinions are better based than others basically theyWaffle off, please, Goofy. Go talk to your brains trust equal, Maximus
are all pretty much equal in value.
Minimus. :-).
Michael Christ
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 07:50:28 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1op76$28iod$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 11:51 pm, Attila wrote:There is little or no evidence needed for an opinion.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:09:21 +1000, Michael Christ"Generally," and let me guess who is judge of the evidence? :-).
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1nn5i$1tont$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
Generally speaking one opinion is as good as another.Thank you for your valuable ignorant opinion.We can't hide what we are, vessels of hope, faith (in whatever), and ourThat is nothing more than fear mixed with ego and wishful
being is full of why am I here? You don't remain a nothing after you are
born. You have transitioned to become a something when you were created.
The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, now you have >>>>>>> to deal with it.
thinking. No one as wonderful as you consider yourself to
be could possibly come to a sudden and complete end as if
you had never existed.
That is quite possible. Get over it.
"The claim that life received from itself" is vanity, asinine, and >>>>>>> scientifically impossible.
Much appreciated.
sadly you're attempting the impossible- trying to have a rational
discussion with someone who's not rational.
Lord Attila?
While some opinions are better based than others basically theyWaffle off, please, Goofy. Go talk to your brains trust equal, Maximus
are all pretty much equal in value.
Minimus. :-).
Michael Christ
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions
of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both
brought into existence.
Speculation.
That Twain existed?
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions
of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.”
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both
brought into existence.
Speculation.
That Twain existed?
No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:56:37 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1pi67$2huac$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:53 pm, Attila wrote:Yes, I am a figment of your imagination. Or is that your
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"I knew it! You never existed!
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:Speculation.
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both
Attila wrote:snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions >>>>>>> of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.”
- Mark Twain
brought into existence.
That Twain existed?
nightmare?
Michael Christ
On 12/05/2024 2:53 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions
of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both
brought into existence.
Speculation.
That Twain existed?
No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
I knew it! You never existed!
Michael Christ
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:56:37 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1pi67$2huac$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:53 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions >>>>>>> of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from it.”
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both
brought into existence.
Speculation.
That Twain existed?
No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
I knew it! You never existed!
Yes, I am a figment of your imagination. Or is that your
nightmare?
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:56:37 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1pi67$2huac$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:53 pm, Attila wrote:Yes, I am a figment of your imagination. Or is that your
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"I knew it! You never existed!
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:Speculation.
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both >>>>>>> brought into existence.
Attila wrote:snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions >>>>>>>> of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest >>>>>>>> inconvenience from it.
- Mark Twain
That Twain existed?
nightmare?
you don't exist, he only believes you do, because everything is a belief..
Michael Christ
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:56:37 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1pi67$2huac$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:53 pm, Attila wrote:Yes, I am a figment of your imagination. Or is that your
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"I knew it! You never existed!
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:Speculation.
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both >>>>>>> brought into existence.
Attila wrote:snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions >>>>>>>> of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest >>>>>>>> inconvenience from it.”
- Mark Twain
That Twain existed?
nightmare?
you don't exist, he only believes you do, because everything is a belief..
On 12/05/2024 7:18 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:56:37 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1pi67$2huac$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:53 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness
that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions >>>>>>>> of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest >>>>>>>> inconvenience from it.
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both >>>>>>> brought into existence.
Speculation.
That Twain existed?
No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
I knew it! You never existed!
Yes, I am a figment of your imagination. Or is that your
nightmare?
You have too much stock in yourself, Goofy. :-).
Who'd thought that? :-). Such a surprise, Mr Awesome "I am Evidence." :-).
Any more agreements without evidence?
Michael Christ
On Sun, 12 May 2024 20:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1q46r$2lhd4$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 12/05/2024 7:18 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:56:37 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1pi67$2huac$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:53 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 03:30:00 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<YIW%N.66104$iMKd.28635@fx12.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:53 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v1ne3u$1tons$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/05/2024 4:06 pm, spaminator wrote:
Maximus <gladiator@colosseum.rome> wrote:
Attila wrote:
snip
Actually when I die I expect the same level of awareness >>>>>>>>>>> that I had before I was born.
https://auslink.info/video/tyson_death.mp4
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions >>>>>>>>> of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest >>>>>>>>> inconvenience from it.”
- Mark Twain
Tyson and Twain are both dismissing the fact that they were both >>>>>>>> brought into existence.
Speculation.
That Twain existed?
No, that anyone was "brought into existence".
I knew it! You never existed!
Yes, I am a figment of your imagination. Or is that your
nightmare?
You have too much stock in yourself, Goofy. :-).
Who'd thought that? :-). Such a surprise, Mr Awesome "I am Evidence." :-).
Of what? That is the question.
Any more agreements without evidence?
Michael Christ
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >>>> it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >>>> ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level
of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not
the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >>>> it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to >>>> look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >>>> ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where shoes!
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >> >it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not the
same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or
whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you
bother to look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or
gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a
soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where shoes!
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't exist.
His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just a pathetic
grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because he pig headedly
refuses to admit that humans have soles.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >>>>>> it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to >>>>>> look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >>>>>> ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where shoes!
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
where are my shooes?
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >> >> >it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >> >> >...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
"Please be precise and
detailed."???? What is dis, a prompt? I'm no c-h-a-t-g-p-t!!!
i no need no stinky prompt!
You:
Craft a comprehensive, meticulously detailed response leaving no ambiguity. >You are aimed to provide a thorough and precise explanation.
Your response will strive to cover all relevant aspects of the topic, anticipating potential questions or areas of confusion.
You will use clear, unambiguous language and provide ample context, examples, or step-by-step guidance as needed to ensure a complete understanding.
The goal is to leave no room for misinterpretation or gaps in information. Now, tell me why don't gorilla wear shoes???
ChatGPT: "CAUSE THEY HAVE NO SOLES, STUPID!!!!
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or
whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you
bother to look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or
gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a
soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where shoes!
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't exist.
His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just a pathetic
grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because he pig headedly
refuses to admit that humans have soles.
Am Sonntag000012, 12.05.2024 um 12:45 schrieb Tim:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not the
same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
The first has a different name: agnosticism.
That's more or less: we don't care, because we cannot know
While atheists believe, that god does not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
...
TH
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >> >it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >> >> >it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >> >> >...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to
look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >>>>>> it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to >>>>>> look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >>>>>> ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to
look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
Not much of an answer. As expected.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to >> >> >look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >> >> >...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to
look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
Not much of an answer. As expected.
Am Sonntag000012, 12.05.2024 um 12:45 schrieb Tim:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not the
same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
The first has a different name: agnosticism.
That's more or less: we don't care, because we cannot know
While atheists believe, that god does not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
...
TH
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000012, 12.05.2024 um 12:45 schrieb Tim:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of
...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not the
same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
The first has a different name: agnosticism.
That's more or less: we don't care, because we cannot know
Agnosticism is simply saying "I don't now if there is a God"
Atheism has to do with belief "I don't believe any god exists"
While atheists believe, that god does not exist.
or believe there is no God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
...
TH
On Mon, 13 May 2024, Maximus wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000012, 12.05.2024 um 12:45 schrieb Tim:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level
of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not the >>>>> same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
The first has a different name: agnosticism.
That's more or less: we don't care, because we cannot know
Agnosticism is simply saying "I don't now if there is a God"
Atheism has to do with belief "I don't believe any god exists"
Incorrect.
Atheism, means not belief in x, where x is some kind of deity.
Theism: b(x). (where b is belief in, x deity)
Atheism:; !b(x). (where ! is not, b is belief in, and x deity)
Theists that argue that atheism is a belief, in my book and
interpretation and definition, they are arguing that !b = b which is a logical contradiction, and hence an invalid argument.
While atheists believe, that god does not exist.
or believe there is no God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
...
TH
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
On 13/05/2024 9:42 am, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit >>>>>>> it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to >>>>>>> look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc, >>>>>>> ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul. >>>>
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information. >>> I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to
look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil >>> on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
Not much of an answer. As expected.
What you need to do is sue the ass off all your relatives who brought
you into being? What for? For stealing bananas and then built a kill
zone to fry their soles.
Michael Christ
"Maximus"wrote in message news:lae54fF1qu8U1@mid.individual.net...
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Attila < wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to >> >> >> >look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul. >> >>
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to
look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
Not much of an answer. As expected.
To have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
"Maximus"wrote in message news:lae54fF1qu8U1@mid.individual.net...
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day, it all
comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result of-->an Intelligent
causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Andrew wrote:
"Maximus"wrote in message news:lae54fF1qu8U1@mid.individual.net...
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day, it all
comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result of-->an Intelligent
causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
I believe others here have disputed that. I don't know enough about DNA
to discuss the matter.
Attila < wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul. >>
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information. >I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to >look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil >on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
Not much of an answer. As expected.
To have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information. >I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to >look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil >on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the >supermarket and buy one."
Not much of an answer. As expected.
To have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
Now, even scientists might not know which is the
left side of transister battery and which is the right side.
Of course, the left side is the negative side.
Even the devil knows it's place.
On a car battery the devil will destory your car if you try
to use the devil to jump start your car battery.
Now, even scientists today are not even aware of How to use
a lie detector machine.
You contact ANY lie detector expert or any lie detector manufacture
and ask them "Which side of the person do you attach the sensors, Left side or Right side?"
THEY WILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! They are clueless.
They probably will say..."It doesn't make any difference."
It's very simple. You want to catch the person lying, you have to talk to the liar.
The devil lies, not the angel.
Are you going to ask the angel, "Did you commit the Murder?"
The angel would say, "It wasn't me, you gotta ask the Devil!"
Ask Lefty.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
You need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to >look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the >supermarket and buy one."
Not much of an answer. As expected.
To have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
Now, even scientists might not know which is the
left side of transister battery and which is the right side.
Of course, the left side is the negative side.
Even the devil knows it's place.
On a car battery the devil will destory your car if you try
to use the devil to jump start your car battery.
Now, even scientists today are not even aware of How to use
a lie detector machine.
You contact ANY lie detector expert or any lie detector manufacture
and ask them "Which side of the person do you attach the sensors, Left side or Right side?"
THEY WILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! They are clueless.
They probably will say..."It doesn't make any difference."
It's very simple. You want to catch the person lying, you have to talk to the liar.
The devil lies, not the angel.
Are you going to ask the angel, "Did you commit the Murder?"
The angel would say, "It wasn't me, you gotta ask the Devil!"
Ask Lefty.
I mean, if a woman has been bad with you, (disobdient and uncompliant) which side of
her face do you slap???? Left side of course! It is only natural.
"Attila" wrote in message
news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day, it all
comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result of-->an Intelligent
causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because, one can explain
anything. if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
"Attila" wrote in message
news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:Now, even scientists might not know which is the
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The StarmakerTo have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Not much of an answer. As expected.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The StarmakerYou need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information. >>>>> I take PayPal.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:detailed.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
I believe we cease to exist with"believe"????
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to >>>>>>>>> look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul. >>>>>> Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to >>>>> look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil >>>>> on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides.
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
left side of transister battery and which is the right side.
Of course, the left side is the negative side.
Even the devil knows it's place.
On a car battery the devil will destory your car if you try
to use the devil to jump start your car battery.
Now, even scientists today are not even aware of How to use
a lie detector machine.
You contact ANY lie detector expert or any lie detector manufacture
and ask them "Which side of the person do you attach the sensors, Left side or Right side?"
THEY WILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! They are clueless.
They probably will say..."It doesn't make any difference."
It's very simple. You want to catch the person lying, you have to talk to the liar.
The devil lies, not the angel.
Are you going to ask the angel, "Did you commit the Murder?"
The angel would say, "It wasn't me, you gotta ask the Devil!"
Ask Lefty.
I mean, if a woman has been bad with you, (disobdient and uncompliant) which side of
her face do you slap???? Left side of course! It is only natural.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:Now, even scientists might not know which is the
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The StarmakerTo have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Not much of an answer. As expected.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The StarmakerYou need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
I believe we cease to exist with"believe"????
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
detailed.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to >>>>> look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides. >>>>>
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
left side of transister battery and which is the right side.
Of course, the left side is the negative side.
Even the devil knows it's place.
On a car battery the devil will destory your car if you try
to use the devil to jump start your car battery.
Now, even scientists today are not even aware of How to use
a lie detector machine.
You contact ANY lie detector expert or any lie detector manufacture
and ask them "Which side of the person do you attach the sensors, Left side or Right side?"
THEY WILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! They are clueless.
They probably will say..."It doesn't make any difference."
It's very simple. You want to catch the person lying, you have to talk to the liar.
The devil lies, not the angel.
Are you going to ask the angel, "Did you commit the Murder?"
The angel would say, "It wasn't me, you gotta ask the Devil!"
Ask Lefty.
I mean, if a woman has been bad with you, (disobdient and uncompliant) which side of
her face do you slap???? Left side of course! It is only natural.
only if you're right handed..
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:only if you're right handed..
The Starmaker wrote:I mean, if a woman has been bad with you, (disobdient and uncompliant) which side of
Attila < wrote:Now, even scientists might not know which is the
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The StarmakerTo have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Not much of an answer. As expected.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The StarmakerYou need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The StarmakerI performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
I believe we cease to exist with"believe"????
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
detailed.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to >>>>>>> look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides. >>>>>>>
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
left side of transister battery and which is the right side.
Of course, the left side is the negative side.
Even the devil knows it's place.
On a car battery the devil will destory your car if you try
to use the devil to jump start your car battery.
Now, even scientists today are not even aware of How to use
a lie detector machine.
You contact ANY lie detector expert or any lie detector manufacture
and ask them "Which side of the person do you attach the sensors, Left side or Right side?"
THEY WILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! They are clueless.
They probably will say..."It doesn't make any difference."
It's very simple. You want to catch the person lying, you have to talk to the liar.
The devil lies, not the angel.
Are you going to ask the angel, "Did you commit the Murder?"
The angel would say, "It wasn't me, you gotta ask the Devil!"
Ask Lefty.
her face do you slap???? Left side of course! It is only natural.
There is an episode of Columbo where the killer kills the woman by
accidently slapping her
with the back side of his hand on her right side of the face.
People who are left handed are a little retarded.
Imagine if the majority of the people in the world were left handed....everybody be dead!
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:only if you're right handed..
The Starmaker wrote:I mean, if a woman has been bad with you, (disobdient and uncompliant) which side of
Attila < wrote:Now, even scientists might not know which is the
On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:28:54 -0700, The StarmakerTo have a soul means you have to have the devil standing on your left shoulder and
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66413496.784A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Not much of an answer. As expected.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The StarmakerYou need to upgrade to Starmaker 4.0 Plus Turbo to get more information.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The StarmakerI performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has a soul.
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>> <663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
I believe we cease to exist with"believe"????
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or whatchamacallit
it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you bother to
look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or gorillas, etc,
...just people do.
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
detailed.
I take PayPal.
You first need to understand...what is a gorilla.
Gorillas are manufactured differently. They don't have a nose (need to
look at it's profile)
Their ears are above the alignment of the eyes.
Their mouth has different alignment to their eyes...
I could go on forever!
Now, is there an angel on one side of the gorilla's shoulder and a devil
on the left shoulder?
i didn't see any.
a devil that whispers in the ear...
the ear is too high up for the devil to reach.
To have a soul you have to have an angel and a devil on both sides. >>>>>>>
Gorilla don't have a devil whispering in the gorillas ear.
What would a devil say to a gorilla? Steal the banana!
Is the angel going to say, "Don't steal the banana, go to the
supermarket and buy one."
the angel on your right shoulder.
You probably don't even understand or know that the devil can
only be on the left shoulder.
That itself is an whole entire volume!
I wouldn't know where to start.
For example: Heaven is on top, and Hell
is on the bottom.
Positive on top
Negative on bottom.
A AAA battery positive + is on top
of the battery, and the negative is
at the flat bottom..hell.
The devil is on the left shoulder because
the Left represents...negative, bad, hell,
The angel is always on the right shoulder because
the right represents...positive, good, heaven.
You probably have heard that
a lot of criminals gangsters are name...Lefty.
This is an whole entire volume!
i don't think you can handle it...
left side of transister battery and which is the right side.
Of course, the left side is the negative side.
Even the devil knows it's place.
On a car battery the devil will destory your car if you try
to use the devil to jump start your car battery.
Now, even scientists today are not even aware of How to use
a lie detector machine.
You contact ANY lie detector expert or any lie detector manufacture
and ask them "Which side of the person do you attach the sensors, Left side or Right side?"
THEY WILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! They are clueless. >>>>
They probably will say..."It doesn't make any difference."
It's very simple. You want to catch the person lying, you have to talk to the liar.
The devil lies, not the angel.
Are you going to ask the angel, "Did you commit the Murder?"
The angel would say, "It wasn't me, you gotta ask the Devil!"
Ask Lefty.
her face do you slap???? Left side of course! It is only natural.
There is an episode of Columbo where the killer kills the woman by accidently slapping her
with the back side of his hand on her right side of the face.
I loved Columbo. I have every episode on DVD.
People who are left handed are a little retarded.
Imagine if the majority of the people in the world were left handed....everybody be dead!
--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23
"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"
"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"
"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."
"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Which one would you suggest?
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:a >> > > soul.
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or
whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if you
bother to look down.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or
gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them has
shoes!
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't exist.
His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just a pathetic
grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because he pig
headedly refuses to admit that humans have soles.
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com... >>> "Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You gotta feel sorry for Atheists...
when they die, they ain't going ..nowhere.
Whereas all the religious people are going to Heaven.
Church origaniztions make more money than Atheists orginations.
Churches make more money than Apple and Microsoft put together!
Maybe I should start selling tickets to Heaven to Atheists..I mean
real tickets with boarding pass that you could hold in your hand and put
it in your pocket.
I take PayPal.
If an atheist marries a christian girl, i'll give him 50% off..and a
window seat.
In God We Trust. All others pay PayPal.
On 14/05/2024 8:39 am, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You have no sole, Attila.
That is what happens when you bring yourself into being.
Michael Christ
--
God is God in all His Being.
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John
10:30 I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.
Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.
Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."
"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."
"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."
"Compromise will condemn you."
"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."
"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."
"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"
"The way of truth is the testimony of life."
"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."
"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."
"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all live, by faith."
"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."
"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."
"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."
"Priority is everything."
"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."
"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."
"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."
"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."
"Wait, rest, be still, and know."
"No man can wash his own hands!!!"
"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."
The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"
"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."
"Man is not the centre of being."
"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."
"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."
"Man has no greater idol than his own will."
"Where is God hiding? He isn't."
"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."
"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's willingness to believe."
"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."
"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."
"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."
"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."
"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."
"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."
"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is
still according to my power," says the Lord.
What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.
"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain."
"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
What a gift in a fallen world!"
"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"
"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"
"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the road."
"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul,
and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being
punished; it is what you are left with."
"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to
birth it in a man."
"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is self-righteousness."
"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."
"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."
"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."
"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."
"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"
"There is no such thing as random!"
"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."
"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God,
you know nothing."
"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."
"No sinner is sinless in any way."
"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."
"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is
a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."
"God uses the "letter" to crucify a man and raise him from the dead."
"Not fearing God is sheer stupidity for sinners."
"Self-righteousness is any exclusion of God in your heart, because any exclusion reveals that you think more about yourself than what you
really are."
"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."
You gotta feel sorry for Atheists...
when they die, they ain't going ..nowhere.
Whereas all the religious people are going to Heaven.
Church origaniztions make more money than Atheists orginations.
Churches make more money than Apple and Microsoft put together!
Maybe I should start selling tickets to Heaven to Atheists..I mean
real tickets with boarding pass that you could hold in your hand and put
it in your pocket.
I take PayPal.
If an atheist marries a christian girl, i'll give him 50% off..and a
window seat.
In God We Trust. All others pay PayPal.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 14/05/2024 8:39 am, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You have no sole, Attila.
That is what happens when you bring yourself into being.
Michael Christ
--
God is God in all His Being.
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John 10:30 I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.
Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.
Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."
"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."
"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."
"Compromise will condemn you."
"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."
"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."
"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"
"The way of truth is the testimony of life."
"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."
"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."
"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all live, by faith."
"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."
"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."
"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."
"Priority is everything."
"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."
"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."
"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."
"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."
"Wait, rest, be still, and know."
"No man can wash his own hands!!!"
"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say, and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."
The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"
"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."
"Man is not the centre of being."
"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."
"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."
"Man has no greater idol than his own will."
"Where is God hiding? He isn't."
"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."
"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's willingness to believe."
"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."
"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."
"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."
"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."
"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."
"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit pretending he is the meaning of life."
"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is still according to my power," says the Lord.
What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.
"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain."
"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
What a gift in a fallen world!"
"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"
"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"
"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the road."
"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul,
and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being punished; it is what you are left with."
"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to birth it in a man."
"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is self-righteousness."
"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."
"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."
"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."
"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."
"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"
"There is no such thing as random!"
"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."
"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God,
you know nothing."
"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."
"No sinner is sinless in any way."
"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."
"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is
a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."
"God uses the "letter" to crucify a man and raise him from the dead."
"Not fearing God is sheer stupidity for sinners."
"Self-righteousness is any exclusion of God in your heart, because any exclusion reveals that you think more about yourself than what you
really are."
"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker wrote:
You gotta feel sorry for Atheists...
when they die, they ain't going ..nowhere.
just like you..
Whereas all the religious people are going to Heaven.
Church origaniztions make more money than Atheists orginations.
Churches make more money than Apple and Microsoft put together!
Maybe I should start selling tickets to Heaven to Atheists..I mean
real tickets with boarding pass that you could hold in your hand and put
it in your pocket.
I take PayPal.
If an atheist marries a christian girl, i'll give him 50% off..and a
window seat.
In God We Trust. All others pay PayPal.
On 15/05/2024 2:54 pm, Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
You gotta feel sorry for Atheists...
when they die, they ain't going ..nowhere.
just like you..
Maximus just opens his mouth and says something in his monotone ignorance.
Atheists think life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless. It is all
for nothing in the atheist world, which is totally contrary to who we
are internally as human beings.
Our "spiritual state," for example, hope, faith, love, purpose, meaning,
and so on, screams at us in all we do, "There is more!!!"
"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."
AKA, it created itself.
Which is totally and utterly ignorant, devoid of intelligence, bullshit,
and completely scientifically impossible.
They are completely lost in their fantasy that everything just did it
itself.
Michael Christ
Whereas all the religious people are going to Heaven.
Church origaniztions make more money than Atheists orginations.
Churches make more money than Apple and Microsoft put together!
Maybe I should start selling tickets to Heaven to Atheists..I mean
real tickets with boarding pass that you could hold in your hand and put >>> it in your pocket.
I take PayPal.
If an atheist marries a christian girl, i'll give him 50% off..and a
window seat.
In God We Trust. All others pay PayPal.
On 14/05/2024 8:39 am, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You have no sole, Attila.
That is what happens when you bring yourself into being.
Michael Christ
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or
whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if
has >> a >> > > soul.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or
gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them
exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just ashoes!
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't
pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because
he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit that humans have soles.
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with you.
You gotta feel sorry for Atheists...
when they die, they ain't going ..nowhere.
Whereas all the religious people are going to Heaven.
Church origaniztions make more money than Atheists orginations.
Churches make more money than Apple and Microsoft put together!
Maybe I should start selling tickets to Heaven to Atheists..I mean
real tickets with boarding pass that you could hold in your hand and put
it in your pocket.
I take PayPal.
If an atheist marries a christian girl, i'll give him 50% off..and a
window seat.
In God We Trust. All others pay PayPal.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 14/05/2024 8:39 am, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You have no sole, Attila.
That is what happens when you bring yourself into being.
Michael Christ
--
God is God in all His Being.
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John
10:30 I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the >> everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God. >>
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. >>
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.
Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.
Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. >>
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that
hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."
"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."
"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."
"Compromise will condemn you."
"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."
"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."
"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"
"The way of truth is the testimony of life."
"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."
"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."
"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."
"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."
"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."
"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."
"Priority is everything."
"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."
"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."
"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."
"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."
"Wait, rest, be still, and know."
"No man can wash his own hands!!!"
"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."
The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"
"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."
"Man is not the centre of being."
"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature." >>
"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."
"Man has no greater idol than his own will."
"Where is God hiding? He isn't."
"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."
"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."
"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."
"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."
"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."
"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today." >>
"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."
"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."
"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is
still according to my power," says the Lord.
What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.
"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain." >>
"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
What a gift in a fallen world!"
"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"
"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"
"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the
road."
"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul,
and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being
punished; it is what you are left with."
"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to
birth it in a man."
"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is
self-righteousness."
"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."
"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."
"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."
"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."
"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"
"There is no such thing as random!"
"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."
"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God,
you know nothing."
"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."
"No sinner is sinless in any way."
"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."
"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is
a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."
"God uses the "letter" to crucify a man and raise him from the dead."
"Not fearing God is sheer stupidity for sinners."
"Self-righteousness is any exclusion of God in your heart, because any
exclusion reveals that you think more about yourself than what you
really are."
"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you tryyyyy
No hell below us
Above us only skyyyyyy
Imagine there's no savior
just reason and rhyme
With knowledge our beacon
We reach for the skyyyy
We ain't going to heaven
cause we got no tickets
...
The Starmaker wrote:
You gotta feel sorry for Atheists...
when they die, they ain't going ..nowhere.
Whereas all the religious people are going to Heaven.
Church origaniztions make more money than Atheists orginations.
Churches make more money than Apple and Microsoft put together!
Maybe I should start selling tickets to Heaven to Atheists..I mean
real tickets with boarding pass that you could hold in your hand and put
it in your pocket.
I take PayPal.
If an atheist marries a christian girl, i'll give him 50% off..and a
window seat.
In God We Trust. All others pay PayPal.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 14/05/2024 8:39 am, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You have no sole, Attila.
That is what happens when you bring yourself into being.
Michael Christ
--
God is God in all His Being.
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John
10:30 I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the >> > everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. >> >
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.
Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.
Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that
hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."
"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."
"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."
"Compromise will condemn you."
"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."
"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."
"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"
"The way of truth is the testimony of life."
"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."
"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."
"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all >> > live, by faith."
"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."
"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."
"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."
"Priority is everything."
"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."
"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander >> > it or to place it where it truly belongs."
"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."
"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to >> > an ignorant straw man."
"Wait, rest, be still, and know."
"No man can wash his own hands!!!"
"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say, >> > and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."
The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"
"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."
"Man is not the centre of being."
"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature." >> >
"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."
"Man has no greater idol than his own will."
"Where is God hiding? He isn't."
"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."
"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."
"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."
"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."
"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."
"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."
"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."
"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."
"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is
still according to my power," says the Lord.
What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.
"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain." >> >
"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
What a gift in a fallen world!"
"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"
"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"
"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the >> > road."
"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul,
and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being
punished; it is what you are left with."
"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to
birth it in a man."
"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is
self-righteousness."
"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."
"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."
"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."
"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."
"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"
"There is no such thing as random!"
"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."
"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God,
you know nothing."
"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."
"No sinner is sinless in any way."
"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."
"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is
a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."
"God uses the "letter" to crucify a man and raise him from the dead."
"Not fearing God is sheer stupidity for sinners."
"Self-righteousness is any exclusion of God in your heart, because any
exclusion reveals that you think more about yourself than what you
really are."
"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with"believe"????
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or
whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if
has >> a >> > > soul.Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or
gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them
exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just ashoes!Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise andOf course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
detailed.
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't
pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because
he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit that humans have soles.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with you.
Why am I not surprised?
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with"believe"????
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or >>>>>>>>>>>> whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if
has >> a >> > > soul.Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or >>>>>>>>>>>> gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them
exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just ashoes!Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise andOf course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
detailed.
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't
pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because
he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit that humans have soles.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with you.
Why am I not surprised?
I suspect he does know and is just playing with you
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>>an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous
sing in an atheist church??? What's the title? wat are the
lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none) time on
it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes drying,
things like that.
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>>an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes
drying, things like that.
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it.On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence,
if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body
or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes,
them >> has >> a >> > > soul.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of
just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit that humans haveexist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes isshoes!
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't
soles. >> >>
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with you.
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
Why am I not surprised?
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no interest in
learning how to identify your subtle subclassifications. You suck dick. That's all I need to know about you.
On Wed, 15 May 2024 09:40:42 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v20spq$ck11$7@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 14/05/2024 8:39 am, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You have no sole, Attila.
I have two, one on each foot.
That is what happens when you bring yourself into being.
Michael Christ
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or
whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if
has >> a >> > > soul.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or
gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them
exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just ashoes!
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't
pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because
he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit that humans have soles.
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with you.
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
Why am I not surprised?
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you tryyyyy
No hell below us
Above us only skyyyyyy
Imagine there's no savior
just reason and rhyme
With knowledge our beacon
We reach for the skyyyy
We ain't going to heaven
cause we got no tickets
...
The Starmaker wrote:
You gotta feel sorry for Atheists...
when they die, they ain't going ..nowhere.
Whereas all the religious people are going to Heaven.
Church origaniztions make more money than Atheists orginations.
Churches make more money than Apple and Microsoft put together!
Maybe I should start selling tickets to Heaven to Atheists..I mean
real tickets with boarding pass that you could hold in your hand and put >>> it in your pocket.
I take PayPal.
If an atheist marries a christian girl, i'll give him 50% off..and a
window seat.
In God We Trust. All others pay PayPal.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 14/05/2024 8:39 am, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:14:51 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<9pv0O.94411$muLb.48338@fx09.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:0or34jd8f3k6k660fe82jv6qjbq3prds64@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Maximus"wrote:
well I don't fuss over definitions. at the end of the day,
it all comes down to '"atheists don't believe in God"
In spite of *evidence* that tells them otherwise!
Such as ~ DNA.
DNA is evidence THAT our origin was the result
of-->an Intelligent causation. And -not- the result
of a "'materialistic only'" process.
Nonsense. You are posting a belief - there are
alternate explanations for everything in DNA
The only reason your above is true, is because,
one can explain anything.if they resort to the
use of fantasy.
Fantasy is unnecessary. Of course, to you fantasy is
anything that contradicts what you have decided is correct.
But for those who go by *real world science*
DNA is evidence that our origin was the result
of an Intelligent causation. And not the result of
a "'materialistic only'' process.
There is no evidence to support anything being not
materialistic only.
You have no sole, Attila.
That is what happens when you bring yourself into being.
Michael Christ
--
God is God in all His Being.
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John >>>> 10:30 I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the
everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. >>>>
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.
Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it >>>> is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.
Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that >>>> hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."
"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."
"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."
"Compromise will condemn you."
"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."
"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."
"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to >>>> know that?"
"The way of truth is the testimony of life."
"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."
"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."
"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all >>>> live, by faith."
"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."
"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."
"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."
"Priority is everything."
"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."
"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander >>>> it or to place it where it truly belongs."
"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."
"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to >>>> an ignorant straw man."
"Wait, rest, be still, and know."
"No man can wash his own hands!!!"
"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say, >>>> and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."
The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the >>>> obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"
"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."
"Man is not the centre of being."
"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature." >>>>
"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."
"Man has no greater idol than his own will."
"Where is God hiding? He isn't."
"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."
"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."
"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."
"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."
"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."
"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."
"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such >>>> is the love of God."
"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."
"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is >>>> still according to my power," says the Lord.
What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.
"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain." >>>>
"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
 What a gift in a fallen world!"
"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"
"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"
"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the >>>> road."
"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul, >>>> and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being
punished; it is what you are left with."
"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to >>>> birth it in a man."
"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is
self-righteousness."
"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."
"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."
"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."
"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."
"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"
"There is no such thing as random!"
"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."
"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God, >>>> you know nothing."
"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."
"No sinner is sinless in any way."
"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."
"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is >>>> a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."
"God uses the "letter" to crucify a man and raise him from the dead."
"Not fearing God is sheer stupidity for sinners."
"Self-righteousness is any exclusion of God in your heart, because any >>>> exclusion reveals that you think more about yourself than what you
really are."
"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
On 15/05/2024 7:59 pm, Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence, or >>>>>>>>>>>> whatchamacallit it.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body if
has >> a >> > > soul.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes, or >>>>>>>>>>>> gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of them
exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes is just ashoes!
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't
pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all he has left. Because
he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit that humans have soles.
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with you.
Tilly wrote:
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
Why am I not surprised?
You filthy homophone, show Ted some respect. He is your superior.
Well, everyone is your superior, but still, there is no need to abuse
Ted with your "flogging your dog" ego!
And it was very considerate of Ted to post your words to alt.homosexual.
You ingrate! You have no sole!
Michael Christ
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous >>>>>>>sing in an atheist church??? What's the title? wat are the >>>>>>>lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none) time on
it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes drying,
things like that.
And yet you are on here posting over and over that there is no evidence
for the supernatural, which of course there couldn't be, by definition.
In article <p4q94j56qm52u14ll7l3qphllf92njgskl@4ax.com>, Attila ><<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >> >>>>>an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes
drying, things like that.
and?
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any afterlife.
"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual essence,
if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your body
or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or fishes,
them >> has >> a >> > > soul.
Where is your evidence to support that? Unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence?
I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of
just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all he has left.exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear shoes isshoes!
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise and
detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't where
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles don't
Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit that humans have
soles. >> >>
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with you.
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
Why am I not surprised?
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no interest in
learning how to identify your subtle subclassifications. You suck dick. >That's all I need to know about you.
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>> an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>>> an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes
drying, things like that.
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:08:01 -0600, Skeeter
<skeeterweed@photonmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66452432$2$2422117$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> wrote:
In article <p4q94j56qm52u14ll7l3qphllf92njgskl@4ax.com>, Attila ><<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes
drying, things like that.
and?
And what?
On 16/05/2024 12:06 am, Richmond wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>>> an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
He is, he is 97. :-).
Michael Christ
In article <7aha4j99ql87gn1s2k9soroh8fdlr953ke@4ax.com>, Attila ><<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:08:01 -0600, Skeeter
<skeeterweed@photonmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66452432$2$2422117$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> wrote:
In article <p4q94j56qm52u14ll7l3qphllf92njgskl@4ax.com>, Attila
<<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes
drying, things like that.
and?
And what?
and what else is better to do?
On Thu, 16 May 2024 09:47:17 +1000, Michael Christ <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v23hi6$138io$14@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 16/05/2024 12:06 am, Richmond wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in >>>>>>> an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
He is, he is 97. :-).
Michael Christ
Not quite, but I am old enough to read the obituaries of
several people I detest.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any
essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it."believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual
body >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your
fishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable and credibleWhere is your evidence to support that?
evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >
and >> >> >> >> > detailed.them >> has >> a >> > > soul.I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise
where >> >> >> shoes!
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles
shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all
he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit
that humans have >> soles. >> >>
you. >> >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
Why am I not surprised?
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no interest in
learning how to identify your subtle subclassifications. You suck
dick. That's all I need to know about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That doesn't
surprise me one bit.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any
essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it."believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a spiritual
body >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can see your
fishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects, or
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable and credible
Where is your evidence to support that?
evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >
and >> >> >> >> > detailed.them >> has >> a >> > > soul.I have yet to see any evidence that any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and none of
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be precise
where >> >> >> shoes!
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas don't
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that soles
shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all
he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit
that humans have >> soles. >> >>
you. >> >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I crossposted this
response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone there will play with
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
Why am I not surprised?
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no interest in
learning how to identify your subtle subclassifications. You suck
dick. That's all I need to know about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That doesn't
surprise me one bit.
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:27:36 -0600, Skeeter
<skeeterweed@photonmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66456109$0$2363132$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> wrote:
In article <7aha4j99ql87gn1s2k9soroh8fdlr953ke@4ax.com>, Attila ><<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:08:01 -0600, Skeeter
<skeeterweed@photonmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66452432$2$2422117$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> wrote:
In article <p4q94j56qm52u14ll7l3qphllf92njgskl@4ax.com>, Attila
<<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes
drying, things like that.
and?
And what?
and what else is better to do?
Just about anything.
In article <832b4jl85i19t7uik316ifbsb32v38pm52@4ax.com>, Attila ><<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:27:36 -0600, Skeeter
<skeeterweed@photonmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66456109$0$2363132$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> wrote:
In article <7aha4j99ql87gn1s2k9soroh8fdlr953ke@4ax.com>, Attila
<<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:08:01 -0600, Skeeter
<skeeterweed@photonmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66452432$2$2422117$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> wrote:
In article <p4q94j56qm52u14ll7l3qphllf92njgskl@4ax.com>, Attila
<<prochoice@here.now> says...
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:06:39 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<861q638900.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous sing in
an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
There is always something better to do. Paint or clothes
drying, things like that.
and?
And what?
and what else is better to do?
Just about anything.
Then do it.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 16/05/2024 2:22 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or any
essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it."believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a
spiritual
body >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.
When you die...your soul leaves your body.
Very similar to an out-of-the-body
experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can
see your
fishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Now animals don't have souls, or insects,
or
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable and credible
Where is your evidence to support that?
evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >
and >> >> >> >> > detailed.them >> has >> a >> > > soul.I have yet to see any evidence that any
soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas, and
none of
Exactly how did you determine this? Please be
precise
where >> >> >> shoes!
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot, gorillas
don't
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that
soles
shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's all
he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses to admit
that humans have >> soles. >> >>
you. >> >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's
possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not start.
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I
crossposted this response to alt.homosexual. Maybe someone
there will play with
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone is.
Why am I not surprised?
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no
interest in learning how to identify your subtle
subclassifications. You suck dick. That's all I need to know
about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That doesn't
surprise me one bit.
I know when a rat has died in my shed. The smell just gets worse and
worse.
Michael Christ
I know what you mean. Stinking queers.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 16/05/2024 12:06 am, Richmond wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song
yous sing in an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
He is, he is 97. :-).
Michael Christ
I think he said he's in his 80s
Michael Christ wrote:
On 16/05/2024 12:06 am, Richmond wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song
yous sing in an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
He is, he is 97. :-).
Michael Christ
I think he said he's in his 80s
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 09:47:17 +1000, Michael Christ
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v23hi6$138io$14@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 16/05/2024 12:06 am, Richmond wrote:sing in >>>>>> an atheist church??? What's the title?
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:15:05 +0100, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<865xvf8e5y.fsf@example.com> wrote:
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:27 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66443D33.7654@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song yous
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
He is, he is 97. :-).
Michael Christ
Not quite, but I am old enough to read the obituaries of
several people I detest.
LOL. I'd be tempted to piss on their graves too.
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 19:17:45 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<tZs1O.136$PQPa.108@fx11.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:any >> >>afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >
On 16/05/2024 2:22 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or
body. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it."believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a
spiritual
When you die...your soul leaves your
insects, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > orbody >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.Very similar to an out-of-the-body
experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can
see your
Now animals don't have souls, or
and >> > > > > > > > > > > > > none offishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable and credibleWhere is your evidence to support that?
evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >
I have yet to see any evidence that any
soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas,
be >> > > > > > > > > > > > precisethem >> has >> a >> > > soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please
gorillas >> > > > > > > > > > > don'tand >> >> >> >> > detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot,
all >> >>he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses towhere >> >> >> shoes!
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that
soles
shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's
admit >> >>that humans have >> soles. >> >>
start. >> > > > > >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's
possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not
someone >> > > > > > there will play with
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I
crossposted this response to alt.homosexual. Maybe
is. >> > > > > Why am I not surprised?you. >> >
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone
and >> worse.
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no
interest in learning how to identify your subtle
subclassifications. You suck dick. That's all I need to know
about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That doesn't
surprise me one bit.
I know when a rat has died in my shed. The smell just gets worse
Michael Christ
I know what you mean. Stinking queers.
Two morons telling each other how wonderful they are when
actually they are only emphasizing their ignorance.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ho·mo·phone
/'häm??fon,'hom??fon/
noun
plural noun: homophones
each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but
different meanings, origins, or spelling, for example new
and knew.
"homophones can cause confusion and people often use the
wrong one in error"
each of a set of symbols denoting the same sound or group of
sounds.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
nig·gard·ly
/'nig?rdle/
adjective
ungenerous; stingy.
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
Similar:
miserly
parsimonious
close-fisted
penny-pinching
cheeseparing
penurious
grasping
greedy
avaricious
Scroogelike
ungenerous
illiberal
close
mean
stingy
mingy
tight
tightfisted
money-grubbing
money-grabbing
cheap
near
View 2 vulgar slang words
Opposite:
generous
adverbARCHAIC
in a stingy or meager manner.
Seriously?? That hasn't been my experience of black people at all,
Attilla. Your racial prejudices are quite irrational.
On 18/05/2024 5:54 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 19:17:45 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<tZs1O.136$PQPa.108@fx11.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:any >> >>afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >
On 16/05/2024 2:22 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or
body. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it."believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a
spiritual
When you die...your soul leaves your
insects, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > orbody >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Very similar to an out-of-the-body
experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can
see your
Now animals don't have souls, or
and >> > > > > > > > > > > > > none offishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable and credible >>>>>>> evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >Where is your evidence to support that?
I have yet to see any evidence that any
soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas,
be >> > > > > > > > > > > > precisethem >> has >> a >> > > soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please
gorillas >> > > > > > > > > > > don'tand >> >> >> >> > detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot,
all >> >>he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses towhere >> >> >> shoes!
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear >>>>>>> shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that
soles
admit >> >>that humans have >> soles. >> >>
start. >> > > > > >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's
possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not
someone >> > > > > > there will play with
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I
crossposted this response to alt.homosexual. Maybe
is. >> > > > > Why am I not surprised?you. >> >
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone
and >> worse.
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no
interest in learning how to identify your subtle
subclassifications. You suck dick. That's all I need to know
about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That doesn't
surprise me one bit.
I know when a rat has died in my shed. The smell just gets worse
Michael Christ
I know what you mean. Stinking queers.
Two morons telling each other how wonderful they are when
actually they are only emphasizing their ignorance.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ho·mo·phone
/'häm??fon,'hom??fon/
noun
plural noun: homophones
each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but
different meanings, origins, or spelling, for example new
and knew.
"homophones can cause confusion and people often use the
wrong one in error"
each of a set of symbols denoting the same sound or group of
sounds.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
nig·gard·ly
/'nig?rdle/
adjective
ungenerous; stingy.
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
Similar:
miserly
parsimonious
close-fisted
penny-pinching
cheeseparing
penurious
grasping
greedy
avaricious
Scroogelike
ungenerous
illiberal
close
mean
stingy
mingy
tight
tightfisted
money-grubbing
money-grabbing
cheap
near
View 2 vulgar slang words
Opposite:
generous
adverbARCHAIC
in a stingy or meager manner.
Seriously?? That hasn't been my experience of black people at all,
Attilla. Your racial prejudices are quite irrational.
Attila is a pro-his-choice raceaholic.
He ravenously devours and swills down the emotions of others, siphoning
their essence with a miser's greed, only to excrete them as toxic waste
after basking in his malevolent euphoria at his neighbors' expense.
He tramples on the feelings of others with callous disregard, offering "niggard (appropriate non-Attila use of the word)" concern with a contemptuous hand, showing nothing but disdain for those of his fellow
man who do not conform to his image (like Maximus).
Just like the sinner Christians, only with less concern about concealing
it behind the bible and religious nicespeak.
Michael Christ
Attila wrote:
"Ted" wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
Richmond wrote:
Attila writes:
Richmond wrote:
Attila writes:
The Starmakerwrote:
I don't know too much about Atheism...but is there a song
yous sing in an atheist church??? What's the title?
wat are the lyrics?
Why do you think atheists have a place to not worship?
Because they do? Here is a map of them.
https://humanists.uk/community/local-humanism/
Sorry. Not only do I not live in the UK the subject is not
important enough to me to spend much if any (usually none)
time on it,
Wow, you don't strike me as someone who is short of time.
He is, he is 97. :-).
Michael Christ
I think he said he's in his 80s
I am pushing 85.
15 more than I have.
Attila wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 19:17:45 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<tZs1O.136$PQPa.108@fx11.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:any >> >>afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >
On 16/05/2024 2:22 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a soul or
body. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it."believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a
spiritual
When you die...your soul leaves your
insects, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > orbody >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down.Very similar to an out-of-the-body
experience.
Your soul leaves your body and you can
see your
Now animals don't have souls, or
and >> > > > > > > > > > > > > none offishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do.
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable and credible
Where is your evidence to support that?
evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >
I have yet to see any evidence that any
soul exists.
I performed some experiments on gorillas,
be >> > > > > > > > > > > > precisethem >> has >> a >> > > soul.
Exactly how did you determine this? Please
gorillas >> > > > > > > > > > > don'tand >> >> >> >> > detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot,
all >> >>he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly refuses towhere >> >> >> shoes!
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't wear
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to insist that
soles
shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws. But it's
admit >> >>that humans have >> soles. >> >>
start. >> > > > > >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose it's
possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did not
someone >> > > > > > there will play with
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I
crossposted this response to alt.homosexual. Maybe
is. >> > > > > Why am I not surprised?you. >> >
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a homophone
and >> worse.
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no
interest in learning how to identify your subtle
subclassifications. You suck dick. That's all I need to know
about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That doesn't
surprise me one bit.
I know when a rat has died in my shed. The smell just gets worse
Michael Christ
I know what you mean. Stinking queers.
Two morons telling each other how wonderful they are when
actually they are only emphasizing their ignorance.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages Learn more
homophone
/'hm??fon,'hom??fon/
noun
plural noun: homophones
each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but
different meanings, origins, or spelling, for example new
and knew.
"homophones can cause confusion and people often use the
wrong one in error"
each of a set of symbols denoting the same sound or group of
sounds.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages Learn more
niggardly
/'nig?rdle/
adjective
ungenerous; stingy.
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
Similar:
miserly
parsimonious
close-fisted
penny-pinching
cheeseparing
penurious
grasping
greedy
avaricious
Scroogelike
ungenerous
illiberal
close
mean
stingy
mingy
tight
tightfisted
money-grubbing
money-grabbing
cheap
near
View 2 vulgar slang words
Opposite:
generous
adverbARCHAIC
in a stingy or meager manner.
Seriously?? That hasn't been my experience of black people at all,
Attilla. Your racial prejudices are quite irrational.
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Case closed. I don't want to hear none of your lip!
Do I make myself clear?
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
then..exactly how did this belief come about????
This belief had to come from...someone THOUGHT of it.
It is in fact an object of the mind.
Depended on someone's mind.
It exist in the mind, nowhere else.
On Mon, 27 May 2024 12:05:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <5ll95jludgeq0ft8cnbavgit9bi2nrq4is@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
then..exactly how did this belief come about????
This belief had to come from...someone THOUGHT of it.
It is in fact an object of the mind.
Depended on someone's mind.
It exist in the mind, nowhere else.
It is an intangible, just as not collecting stamps is an
intangible.
Michael Christ wrote:
On 18/05/2024 5:54 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 16 May 2024 19:17:45 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<tZs1O.136$PQPa.108@fx11.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 16/05/2024 2:22 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
credible >>>>>>evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >any >> >>afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700,
The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a
soul or
body. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a
spiritual
When you die...your soul leaves
your
insects, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > orbody >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Very similar to an out-of-the-body
experience.
Your soul leaves your body and
you can see your
Now animals don't have souls, or
fishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable andWhere is your evidence to support
that?
wear >>>>>>shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws.and >> > > > > > > > > > > > > none ofI have yet to see any evidence that
any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on
gorillas,
be >> > > > > > > > > > > > precisethem >> has >> a >> > > soul.
Exactly how did you determine this?
Please
gorillas >> > > > > > > > > > > don'tand >> >> >> >> > detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot,
where >> >> >> shoes!
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to
insist that soles
But it's >>all >> >>he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly
refuses to >>admit >> >>that humans have >> soles. >> >>
start. >> > > > > >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose
it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did
not
someone >> > > > > > there will play with
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I
crossposted this response to alt.homosexual. Maybe
is. >> > > > > Why am I not surprised?you. >> >
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a
homophone
and >> worse.
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no
interest in learning how to identify your subtle
subclassifications. You suck dick. That's all I need
to know about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That
doesn't surprise me one bit.
I know when a rat has died in my shed. The smell just gets
worse
Michael Christ
I know what you mean. Stinking queers.
Two morons telling each other how wonderful they are when
actually they are only emphasizing their ignorance.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ho·mo·phone
/'häm??fon,'hom??fon/
noun
plural noun: homophones
each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but
different meanings, origins, or spelling, for example new
and knew.
"homophones can cause confusion and people often use the
wrong one in error"
each of a set of symbols denoting the same sound or group of
sounds.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
nig·gard·ly
/'nig?rdle/
adjective
ungenerous; stingy.
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
Similar:
miserly
parsimonious
close-fisted
penny-pinching
cheeseparing
penurious
grasping
greedy
avaricious
Scroogelike
ungenerous
illiberal
close
mean
stingy
mingy
tight
tightfisted
money-grubbing
money-grabbing
cheap
near
View 2 vulgar slang words
Opposite:
generous
adverbARCHAIC
in a stingy or meager manner.
Seriously?? That hasn't been my experience of black people at all,
Attilla. Your racial prejudices are quite irrational.
Attila is a pro-his-choice raceaholic.
He ravenously devours and swills down the emotions of others,
siphoning their essence with a miser's greed, only to excrete them as
toxic waste after basking in his malevolent euphoria at his
neighbors' expense.
He tramples on the feelings of others with callous disregard,
offering "niggard (appropriate non-Attila use of the word)" concern
with a contemptuous hand, showing nothing but disdain for those of
his fellow man who do not conform to his image (like Maximus).
Just like the sinner Christians, only with less concern about
concealing it behind the bible and religious nicespeak.
Michael Christ
MX is quite intelligent.
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2024 12:05:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<5ll95jludgeq0ft8cnbavgit9bi2nrq4is@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
then..exactly how did this belief come about????
This belief had to come from...someone THOUGHT of it.
It is in fact an object of the mind.
Depended on someone's mind.
It exist in the mind, nowhere else.
It is an intangible, just as not collecting stamps is an
intangible.
do you collect old coffee cups?
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
then..exactly how did this belief come about????
This belief had to come from...someone THOUGHT of it.
It is in fact an object of the mind.
Depended on someone's mind.
It exist in the mind, nowhere else.
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
who is claiming atheism is a science?
On Tue, 28 May 2024 10:13:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <665610D7.5634@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2024 12:05:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<5ll95jludgeq0ft8cnbavgit9bi2nrq4is@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
then..exactly how did this belief come about????
This belief had to come from...someone THOUGHT of it.
It is in fact an object of the mind.
Depended on someone's mind.
It exist in the mind, nowhere else.
It is an intangible, just as not collecting stamps is an
intangible.
do you collect old coffee cups?
No. I suppose that is a hobby I never knew I had. In fact,
upon reflection, it seems I have millions of them I never
realized even existed.
On 29/05/2024 6:55 am, Ted wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 18/05/2024 5:54 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><66404073.5835@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 16 May 2024 19:17:45 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<tZs1O.136$PQPa.108@fx11.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 16/05/2024 2:22 pm, Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:29:33 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<x281O.5$pDq2.2@fx15.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024 06:38:09 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<lLY0O.100365$Y79f.79618@fx16.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:30:31 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <HkM0O.14091$yT%1.12724@fx33.iad> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 17:17:23 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <DQ60O.88922$TyYf.22662@fx15.iad> wrote:
Michael Christ wrote:
On 12/05/2024 2:49 pm, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:07:15 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
credible >>>>>>evidence? >> >> >> >> > > >any >> >>afterlife. >> >> >> >> > > > >message-id >> >> >> >> >>><663FB4B3.48A3@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 11:10:59 -0700,
The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with
Maximus wrote:
I believe we cease to exist with
death. I don't believe in a
soul or
body. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >essence, >> or >> >> >> > > > > whatchamacallit it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"believe"????
Of course people have souls, or a
spiritual
When you die...your soul leaves
your
insects, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > orbody >> if >> you >> >> > > > > bother to look down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Very similar to an out-of-the-body
experience.
Your soul leaves your body and
you can see your
Now animals don't have souls, or
fishes, >> or >> >> >> > > > > gorillas, etc, ...just people do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unambiguous, >> >> >> >> > > > unrelated, verifiable andWhere is your evidence to support
that?
wear >>>>>>shoes is >> just a >> pathetic >> > grasping at straws.and >> > > > > > > > > > > > > none ofI have yet to see any evidence that
any soul exists.
I performed some experiments on
gorillas,
be >> > > > > > > > > > > > precisethem >> has >> a >> > > soul.
Exactly how did you determine this?
Please
gorillas >> > > > > > > > > > > don'tand >> >> >> >> > detailed.
Of course, they have no sole, you idiot,
where >> >> >> shoes!
don't >> >> exist. >> > His pointing out that animals don't
Exactly.
All atheists are idiots.
Michael Christ
Oh sheesh. Attilla is still trying to
insist that soles
But it's >>all >> >>he has left. >> Because >> he pig >> > headedly
refuses to >>admit >> >>that humans have >> soles. >> >>
start. >> > > > > >
Does that include humans who have no feet?
Now you're getting into philosophy. I suppose
it's possible.
I am just paying the silly homophone game I did
not
someone >> > > > > > there will play with
I'm not interested in faggot games, sorry. But I
crossposted this response to alt.homosexual. Maybe
is. >> > > > > Why am I not surprised?you. >> >
I see in your ignorance you don't know what a
homophone
and >> worse.
As far as I'm concerned, faggotry is faggotry. I have no
interest in learning how to identify your subtle
subclassifications. You suck dick. That's all I need
to know about you.
The intelligent are LTAO.
You are too dumb to even Google a term you obviously don't
know. You belong squarely in the mob that yells for the
head of anyone who uses the word "niggardly".
So, you're not just a queer, you're also a racist. That
doesn't surprise me one bit.
I know when a rat has died in my shed. The smell just gets
worse
Michael Christ
I know what you mean. Stinking queers.
Two morons telling each other how wonderful they are when
actually they are only emphasizing their ignorance.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ho·mo·phone
/'häm??fon,'hom??fon/
noun
plural noun: homophones
each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but
different meanings, origins, or spelling, for example new
and knew.
"homophones can cause confusion and people often use the
wrong one in error"
each of a set of symbols denoting the same sound or group of
sounds.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
nig·gard·ly
/'nig?rdle/
adjective
ungenerous; stingy.
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
Similar:
miserly
parsimonious
close-fisted
penny-pinching
cheeseparing
penurious
grasping
greedy
avaricious
Scroogelike
ungenerous
illiberal
close
mean
stingy
mingy
tight
tightfisted
money-grubbing
money-grabbing
cheap
near
View 2 vulgar slang words
Opposite:
generous
adverbARCHAIC
in a stingy or meager manner.
Seriously?? That hasn't been my experience of black people at all,
Attilla. Your racial prejudices are quite irrational.
Attila is a pro-his-choice raceaholic.
He ravenously devours and swills down the emotions of others,
siphoning their essence with a miser's greed, only to excrete them as
toxic waste after basking in his malevolent euphoria at his
neighbors' expense.
He tramples on the feelings of others with callous disregard,
offering "niggard (appropriate non-Attila use of the word)" concern
with a contemptuous hand, showing nothing but disdain for those of
his fellow man who do not conform to his image (like Maximus).
Just like the sinner Christians, only with less concern about
concealing it behind the bible and religious nicespeak.
Michael Christ
MX is quite intelligent.
The more time you spend on something, the more "intelligent" you become.
:-).
If you know what I mean.
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
Scientist are in competition with God because they don't like's God's IQ rating..it's like
wayyyy above theirs.
So scientists are trying to Murder God.
Scientists want to inherit the Earth.
Scientists want yous to bow down to them...
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
if so that doesn't mean atheism is a science
Scientist are in competition with God because they don't like's God's IQ rating..it's like
wayyyy above theirs.
So scientists are trying to Murder God.
Scientists want to inherit the Earth.
Scientists want yous to bow down to them...
--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23
"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"
"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"
"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."
"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
if so that doesn't mean atheism is a science
People who write books mostly write about ..what they know.
Since most atheism books are writteb by the 'scientific community', it
is they who claiming
atheism is a science (even if they don't believe it themslves).
I already explained this, Atheism books is not about atheism...it's
about How To Murder God.
Scientist are in competition with God because they don't like's God's IQ rating..it's like
wayyyy above theirs.
So scientists are trying to Murder God.
Scientists want to inherit the Earth.
Scientists want yous to bow down to them...
--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23
"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"
"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"
"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."
"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
if so that doesn't mean atheism is a science
People who write books mostly write about ..what they know.
Since most atheism books are writteb by the 'scientific community', it
is they who claiming
atheism is a science (even if they don't believe it themslves).
I already explained this, Atheism books is not about atheism...it's
about How To Murder God.
Scientist are in competition with God because they don't like's God's IQ rating..it's like
wayyyy above theirs.
So scientists are trying to Murder God.
Scientists want to inherit the Earth.
Scientists want yous to bow down to them...
--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!?- hhyapster 7.4.23
"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"
"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"
"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."
"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"
On Wed, 29 May 2024 09:44:34 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66575B72.7656@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
if so that doesn't mean atheism is a science
People who write books mostly write about ..what they know.
Since most atheism books are writteb by the 'scientific community', it
is they who claiming
atheism is a science (even if they don't believe it themslves).
I already explained this, Atheism books is not about atheism...it's
about How To Murder God.
I was not aware there is a law against killing a god. Any
god..
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:i think , " thou shall not kill " says it all
On Wed, 29 May 2024 09:44:34 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66575B72.7656@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
if so that doesn't mean atheism is a science
People who write books mostly write about ..what they know.
Since most atheism books are writteb by the 'scientific community', it >>>> is they who claiming
atheism is a science (even if they don't believe it themslves).
I already explained this, Atheism books is not about atheism...it's
about How To Murder God.
I was not aware there is a law against killing a god. Any
god..
There are laws that are called Laws of Nature, that are not written in
books...
and God does not allow anyone to get away with...Murder...especially
His.
God will get you for dat.
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 09:44:34 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66575B72.7656@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
if so that doesn't mean atheism is a science
People who write books mostly write about ..what they know.
Since most atheism books are writteb by the 'scientific community', it
is they who claiming
atheism is a science (even if they don't believe it themslves).
I already explained this, Atheism books is not about atheism...it's
about How To Murder God.
I was not aware there is a law against killing a god. Any
god..
There are laws that are called Laws of Nature, that are not written in >books...
and God does not allow anyone to get away with...Murder...especially
His.
God will get you for dat.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
or red, yellow and blue paint anywhere else in the universe?
or
snowflakes like we got here on earth?
or a single blade of grass anywhere else in the universe????
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 09:44:34 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66575B72.7656@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Maximus wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:57:02 -0700, The Starmakerwho is claiming atheism is a science?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.So, since Atheism is a belief, and it's not a science...
Most books on atheism are written by scientists and the 'scientific community', not christians.
if so that doesn't mean atheism is a science
People who write books mostly write about ..what they know.
Since most atheism books are writteb by the 'scientific community', it
is they who claiming
atheism is a science (even if they don't believe it themslves).
I already explained this, Atheism books is not about atheism...it's
about How To Murder God.
I was not aware there is a law against killing a god. Any
god..
There are laws that are called Laws of Nature, that are not written in books...
and God does not allow anyone to get away with...Murder...especially
His.
God will get you for dat.
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> writes:
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
You see if you had both started by defining God you would not have got
into this mess, and would have saved much time.
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
I have to applaud your efforts on your search for God and seeing ... A
ham sandwich!
On Thu, 30 May 2024 22:16:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66595D33.145C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
I have to applaud your efforts on your search for God and seeing ... A
ham sandwich!
What makes you think I am searching for any god?
The ham sandwich is what some others accept as sufficient
evidence. Thus proving nuts are everywhere.
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 22:16:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66595D33.145C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
I have to applaud your efforts on your search for God and seeing ... A
ham sandwich!
What makes you think I am searching for any god?
The ham sandwich is what some others accept as sufficient
evidence. Thus proving nuts are everywhere.
Chock full o'Nuts is that heavenly coffee!...
Since your quest to find proof of God led you to a...ham sandwich, I
have to go by what your eyes see.
Maybe you found God in a ham sandwich.
So, to continue, I need to use your ham sandwich as proof of God.
If you go to the store
to buy Ham, and you get home
and realize you forgot to
buy the bread...
and you take the Ham out
of the packaging
and eat it, it's not
a ham sandwich.
You need at least
two slices of bread
to make a ham sandwich.
If you have
two slices of bread
you can make the
ham sandwich,
a chicken sandwich
a grilled cheese sandwich
a BLT
a hamburger sandwich
even
a hotdog sandwich!
So, a sandwich
is a ...creation.
It's an arrangement...
you create a sandwich
that looks like a
sandwich...
I mean, you saw a
ham sandwich
which means it had to
have at least two
slices of bread on it
to be considered
a sandwich...
a ham sandwich.
It is simply
a creation, an
arrangement
of materials on
earth to create
what appears
to you to be
a ham sandwich.
You change the
arrangement and
it could easily be
a hotdog sandwich.
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
to all atheists,
you may not believe in God, but God believes in you.
The Starmaker wrote:
to all atheists,
you may not believe in God, but God believes in you.
The atheist looks at God and says, "Okay, you got me. What else did I
get wrong?"
to all atheists,
you may not believe in God, but God believes in you.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
to all atheists,
you may not believe in God, but God believes in you.
The atheist looks at God and says, "Okay, you got me. What else did I
get wrong?"
The atheist looks at God and says, "Well, this is a bit of a plot twist, isn't it?"
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The atheist looks at God and says, "Well, this is a bit of a plot
The Starmaker wrote:
The atheist looks at God and says, "Okay, you got me. What else did I
to all atheists,
you may not believe in God, but God believes in you.
get wrong?"
twist,
isn't it?"
The atheist looks at Jesus and says, "So, about that whole walking on
water thing... can I get a demonstration?"
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level
of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not
the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do?
Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!" >>
Everything is evidence there is a God.
In the Name of Jesus
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v3t0rh$1kfaf$1@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says...
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not
the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
Oh look. Dimmy found a way to post.
Look, the little humper from the trailer park is here!
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <6_6cne03W4aKlv_7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, pursent100 @gmail.com says...
Tim wrote:
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not >>>>>> the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
try ironing your head
the rerun is back
When did you leave?
On 2024-06-06 3:16 p.m., % wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not
the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
try ironing your head
I'll use yours as a paddle, paddle head.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of Jesus <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
Everything is evidence there is a God.
That is what I mean. That attitude allows no further
discussion.
BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Skeeter wrote:
In article <v47r4j$kra0$3@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says...
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <6_6cne03W4aKlv_7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, pursent100 >>> @gmail.com says...
Tim wrote:
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not >>>>>>>> the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
try ironing your head
the rerun is back
When did you leave?
Copycat is back too.
it's a rerun reunion
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>
don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
It is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where
that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
creating itself.
As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
Everything is evidence there is a God.
That is what I mean. That attitude allows no further
discussion.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.
And yes, we have differing experience.
BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves >there is no God!"
There are too many possible alternatives to
attribute anything to an intelligent source.
"Attila" wrote in message news:ok8g6jtcgcjgt2av1eg3joil925cd6ctka@4ax.com...
There are too many possible alternatives to
attribute anything to an intelligent source.
But you cannot cite any that are
not dependent upon pure fantasy.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of Jesus <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>>
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere.
I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
It is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where
that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
creating itself.
There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
anything to an intelligent source.
As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
Everything is evidence there is a God.
That is what I mean. That attitude allows no further
discussion.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.
And yes, we have differing experience.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves
there is no God!"
You cannot prove a negative.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
There are too many possible alternatives to
attribute anything to an intelligent source.
But you cannot cite any that are
not dependent upon pure fantasy.
Not nearly as dependent as your assertion.
"Attila" wrote in message news:r5mg6jluc2i3su51klnvqnfenbh7v2rmop@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
There are too many possible alternatives to
attribute anything to an intelligent source.
But you cannot cite any that are
not dependent upon pure fantasy.
Not nearly as dependent as your assertion.
Since you cannot cite, this should tell you
that your position has no solid foundation.
Which fact tells us, that you are obviously
deceived.
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
On 11/06/2024 8:13 pm, Attila wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>>>
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is >>>>>>>>>> needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
I rest my case.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere. >>>>>>>>
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
It is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where
that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
creating itself.
There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
anything to an intelligent source.
As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
Everything is evidence there is a God.
That is what I mean. That attitude allows no further
discussion.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.
And yes, we have differing experience.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves >>> there is no God!"
You cannot prove a negative.
Who says?
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:37:42 +1000, In the Name of Jesus <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v4ag37$187hc$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/06/2024 8:13 pm, Attila wrote:Anyone. All possible sources must be investigated to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of JesusWho says?
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of JesusIt is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:So you say. I require a bit more.
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The StarmakerI think you are not understanding...
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>> "Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>>>> Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is >>>>>>>>>>> needed.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere. >>>>>>>>> I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
creating itself.
anything to an intelligent source.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.That is what I mean. That attitude allows no furtherAs I said, for some that is all that is necessary. TheyEverything is evidence there is a God.
discussion.
And yes, we have differing experience.
You cannot prove a negative.BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves >>>> there is no God!"
support a negative and no alternative explanations can
exist.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:37:42 +1000, In the Name of Jesus <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v4ag37$187hc$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/06/2024 8:13 pm, Attila wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>> "Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is >>>>>>>>>>> needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
I rest my case.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere. >>>>>>>>>
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
It is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where
that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
creating itself.
There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
anything to an intelligent source.
As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
Everything is evidence there is a God.
That is what I mean. That attitude allows no further
discussion.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.
And yes, we have differing experience.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves >>>> there is no God!"
You cannot prove a negative.
Who says?
Anyone. All possible sources must be investigated to
support a negative and no alternative explanations can
exist.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:37:42 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v4ag37$187hc$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/06/2024 8:13 pm, Attila wrote:Anyone. All possible sources must be investigated to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of JesusWho says?
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of JesusIt is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where >>>>> that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:So you say. I require a bit more.
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The StarmakerI think you are not understanding...
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>> "Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>>>>> Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you >>>>>>>>>>>>> looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his >>>>>>>>>>>>> aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>>
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is >>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere. >>>>>>>>>> I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a >>>>>>>>> god!"
creating itself.
anything to an intelligent source.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.That is what I mean. That attitude allows no furtherAs I said, for some that is all that is necessary. TheyEverything is evidence there is a God.
discussion.
And yes, we have differing experience.
You cannot prove a negative.BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves >>>>> there is no God!"
support a negative and no alternative explanations can
exist.
some negatives can be proven. I could prove there's no gorilla in my car.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Maximus wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:37:42 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v4ag37$187hc$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/06/2024 8:13 pm, Attila wrote:Anyone. All possible sources must be investigated to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of JesusWho says?
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of JesusIt is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich,
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>> <6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:So you say. I require a bit more.
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The StarmakerI think you are not understanding...
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>> <6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID do?
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere. >>>>>>>>>>> I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there >>>>>>>>>> is a god!"
where
that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
creating itself.
anything to an intelligent source.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.That is what I mean. That attitude allows no furtherAs I said, for some that is all that is necessary. TheyEverything is evidence there is a God.
discussion.
And yes, we have differing experience.
You cannot prove a negative.BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That
proves
there is no God!"
support a negative and no alternative explanations can
exist.
some negatives can be proven. I could prove there's no gorilla in my
car.
Not strictly conclusively.
You could be mistaken, one could have snuck in there when you were not watching, one could in fact be there _right now_.
I'd say that you would make a stronger claim by saying that you can
logically prove a negative such as for instance, there is no gorilla
of specified size in your microwave due to the laws of physics. But
that is not scientific proof, just a tautology that follows from the premises.
But once the gorilla is seen, and documented, it is proven to at least
have existed forever.
Ok, ok, for the philosophical fans out there, you could always argue
eternal and supreme doubt, but that leads nowhere which is why it is
not taken seriously in academic circles.
Not strictly conclusively.Anyone. All possible sources must be investigated toYou cannot prove a negative.Who says?
support a negative and no alternative explanations can
exist.
some negatives can be proven. I could prove there's no gorilla in my car. >>
at any particular point in time is/was implied
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:22:45 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <666895F5.7D1B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
Truth bears repeating. Even then it is often ignored.
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:37:42 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v4ag37$187hc$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/06/2024 8:13 pm, Attila wrote:Anyone. All possible sources must be investigated to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of JesusWho says?
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of JesusIt is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where >>>>> that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:So you say. I require a bit more.
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The StarmakerI think you are not understanding...
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>> "Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>>>>> Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>>
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is >>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere. >>>>>>>>>> I rest my case.
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
creating itself.
anything to an intelligent source.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.That is what I mean. That attitude allows no furtherAs I said, for some that is all that is necessary. TheyEverything is evidence there is a God.
discussion.
And yes, we have differing experience.
You cannot prove a negative.BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves >>>>> there is no God!"
support a negative and no alternative explanations can
exist.
some negatives can be proven. I could prove there's no gorilla in my car.
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:22:45 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666895F5.7D1B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
Truth bears repeating. Even then it is often ignored.
A parrot can repeat anything you say...that is no indication the parrot
is speaking the truth.
Polly wanna ham sandwhich?
On 12/06/2024 7:20 pm, Attila wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:37:42 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v4ag37$187hc$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 11/06/2024 8:13 pm, Attila wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:39:54 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v482sa$l4q3$3@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 6:08 pm, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:20:48 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
<michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with
message-id <v459s0$3r090$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 7:24 am, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:06:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6664ABBE.2601@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:49 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6658D1CD.38D1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:47:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>> <6658ADB2.6E8E@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Probably not. What are the conditions for obtaining one? I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't trust anything coming out of Cartel West.
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:04:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <6657C27F.35B6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of any god.
Do you see trees anywhere else in the universe?
I have not looked everywhere. Have you?
You want proof of God, would a California Driver License ID do? >>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here AttiLa is that God is everywhere. Even if you looked 'everywhere'
you wouldn't be able to 'see' Him...just as a fish in his aquarium doesn't understand
what he sees everywhere pass the glass.
Difficult to analyze and describe...God is subtle.
"Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>> "Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
"Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!" >>>>>>>>>>>>
Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is >>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
I think you are not understanding...
So you say. I require a bit more.
I rest my case.
God is everywhere, but
You cannot look everywhere at once.
I didn't say "Look over there."
If you look over there you might see a rock..
but if you look eveywhere..you see...God.
God is everywhere, not ...over there.
A rock is not everywhere, it's over there.
Where's that ham sandwitch???? i bet it's somewhere overthere. >>>>>>>>>>
Attila < wrote: "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
It is if you bother to look at what constitutes a ham sandwich, where >>>>> that ham sandwich came from, and the impossibility of everything
creating itself.
There are too many possible alternatives to attribute
anything to an intelligent source.
As I said, for some that is all that is necessary. They
Everything is evidence there is a God.
That is what I mean. That attitude allows no further
discussion.
Well, everything is the evidence for God.
And yes, we have differing experience.
Thus making the experience of someone else useless.
BTW, where is any supporting evidence (actual facts) for
that conclusion? Or is it only your unsupported belief?
Is this the point where I say, "Oh look! There is an Attila! That proves >>>>> there is no God!"
You cannot prove a negative.
Who says?
Anyone. All possible sources must be investigated to
support a negative and no alternative explanations can
exist.
That sounds to me like you are saying nothing.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:25:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6669D9EE.766B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:22:45 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666895F5.7D1B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
Truth bears repeating. Even then it is often ignored.
A parrot can repeat anything you say...that is no indication the parrot
is speaking the truth.
Polly wanna ham sandwhich?
I see you don't argue my basic point. There are alternate
explanations.
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:25:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6669D9EE.766B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:22:45 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666895F5.7D1B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
Truth bears repeating. Even then it is often ignored.
A parrot can repeat anything you say...that is no indication the parrot >is speaking the truth.
Polly wanna ham sandwhich?
I see you don't argue my basic point. There are alternate
explanations.
I don't know what you mean by "alternate explanations"...
there is only one earth
our moon, that's it, there isn't another
Mars?
there is only one Mars
Venus
Pluto
there isn't TWO to choose from.
There is only one Earth.
Where is an alternate Earth?
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
Only God can make a tree that ...ISN'T a tree.
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:25:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6669D9EE.766B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:22:45 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666895F5.7D1B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
Truth bears repeating. Even then it is often ignored.
A parrot can repeat anything you say...that is no indication the parrot >> > >is speaking the truth.
Polly wanna ham sandwhich?
I see you don't argue my basic point. There are alternate
explanations.
I don't know what you mean by "alternate explanations"...
there is only one earth
our moon, that's it, there isn't another
Mars?
there is only one Mars
Venus
Pluto
there isn't TWO to choose from.
There is only one Earth.
Where is an alternate Earth?
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
Only God can make a tree that ...ISN'T a tree.
Look at the tree more closely..you'll see it ain't a tree.
Look at the details of the tree...
God is in the details.
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:25:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6669D9EE.766B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:22:45 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666895F5.7D1B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
Truth bears repeating. Even then it is often ignored.
A parrot can repeat anything you say...that is no indication the parrot
is speaking the truth.
Polly wanna ham sandwhich?
I see you don't argue my basic point. There are alternate
explanations.
I don't know what you mean by "alternate explanations"...
there is only one earth
our moon, that's it, there isn't another
Mars?
there is only one Mars
Venus
Pluto
there isn't TWO to choose from.
There is only one Earth.
Where is an alternate Earth?
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
Only God can make a tree that ...ISN'T a tree.
On 2024-06-10 5:29 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v47r3v$kra0$2@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says...
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v3t0rh$1kfaf$1@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says... >>>>
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not >>>>>>> the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
Oh look. Dimmy found a way to post.
Look, the little humper from the trailer park is here!
good to see you rerun, did you finally heal up after the last ass
kicking you got?
I see your imagination is still in low gear. Did you learn to read
headers yet?
On 2024-06-10 8:29 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <FQednRinX5OV7_r7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>, pursent100 @gmail.com says...
Skeeter wrote:
In article <v47r4j$kra0$3@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says... >>>>it's a rerun reunion
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <6_6cne03W4aKlv_7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, pursent100 >>>>> @gmail.com says...
Tim wrote:
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerHow is that not a belief?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god. >>>>>>>>>
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not >>>>>>>>>> the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
try ironing your head
the rerun is back
When did you leave?
Copycat is back too.
he will run away again
You're just jealous because I have a life while you're stuck in a shitty trailer park.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:47:05 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <666A79C9.1E47@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:25:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6669D9EE.766B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:22:45 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666895F5.7D1B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:04:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6667F706.7071@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:11:35 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<665A20E7.F58@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now, look out your
window...do you see
that tree over there?
It's not a tree.
This is not Abraham Lincoln:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lincoln_statue%2C_Lincoln_Memorial.jpg
You look out your
window, it's still not a tree..
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like a tree.
It's not a tree.
and
it's not Abraham Lincoln...
someone, something took
something and formed it, shaped it...
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
it's a marble stone
formed and shaped ..
to look like Abraham Lincoln
it's not Abraham Lincoln..
It's not a tree.
Now, why would anyone
make a tree that isn't a tree?
Is God playing a joke on you?
All the world is a stage
And all the trees merely players..
And one tree in it's time plays many parts...
There are too many possible alternatives to accept something
with no supporting evidence as being true.
You sound like a broken record...who broke the record???
Truth bears repeating. Even then it is often ignored.
A parrot can repeat anything you say...that is no indication the parrot >> > >is speaking the truth.
Polly wanna ham sandwhich?
I see you don't argue my basic point. There are alternate
explanations.
I don't know what you mean by "alternate explanations"...
there is only one earth
our moon, that's it, there isn't another
Mars?
there is only one Mars
Venus
Pluto
there isn't TWO to choose from.
There is only one Earth.
Where is an alternate Earth?
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
Only God can make a tree that ...ISN'T a tree.
Look at the tree more closely..you'll see it ain't a tree.
Look at the details of the tree...
God is in the details.
Why do you so frequently answer yourself?
On 2024-06-13 10:53 a.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v4crb3$1pqqk$1@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says...
On 2024-06-10 5:30 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v47r4j$kra0$3@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says... >>>>
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <6_6cne03W4aKlv_7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, pursent100 >>>>> @gmail.com says...
Tim wrote:
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerHow is that not a belief?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level >>>>>>>>>>> of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god. >>>>>>>>>
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not >>>>>>>>>> the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
try ironing your head
the rerun is back
When did you leave?
Copycat is back too.
I see you.
So? Will it be a rerun or a copycat?
It's your life. I don't give a fuck either way.
On 2024-06-13 10:53 a.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v4crch$1pqqk$2@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says...
On 2024-06-10 8:29 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <FQednRinX5OV7_r7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>, pursent100 >>> @gmail.com says...
Skeeter wrote:
In article <v47r4j$kra0$3@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says... >>>>>>it's a rerun reunion
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <6_6cne03W4aKlv_7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, pursent100
@gmail.com says...
Tim wrote:
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerHow is that not a belief?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level
of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god. >>>>>>>>>>>
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is not
the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
try ironing your head
the rerun is back
When did you leave?
Copycat is back too.
he will run away again
You're just jealous because I have a life while you're stuck in a shitty >> trailer park.
We all know what you are about liar.
There is no we, trailer boy. And you don't know shit from shit weed.
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
There is only one God. I don't know where do people get the idea that there is >more than one God.
In article <666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes
Attila < wrote:Daniel 5:11 "There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
holy gods"
1 Corinthians 8:5 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in >heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)"
There is only one God. I don't know where do people get the idea that there is
more than one God.
--
John Ritson
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
There is only one God. I don't know where do people get the idea that there is more than one God.
Atheists have trouble seeing God.
Maybe you notice
when people
pray to God...
they close
their eyes.
God is everywhere.
To see God you
have to
close your eyes.
The act of
'observering'
makes God..
appear invisible.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
There is only one God. I don't know where do people get the idea that there is more than one God.
Atheists have trouble seeing God.
Maybe you notice
when people
pray to God...
they close
their eyes.
God is everywhere.
To see God you
have to
close your eyes.
The act of
'observing'
makes God..
appear invisible.
The Starmaker wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >>
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
There is only one God. I don't know where do people get the idea that there is more than one God.
Atheists have trouble seeing God.
Maybe you notice
when people
pray to God...
they close
their eyes.
God is everywhere.
To see God you
have to
close your eyes.
The act of
'observing'
makes God..
appear invisible.
They say God is the Light.
dat is why
when people pray
they close their eyes..and
they also bow their head
down to block the Light,
since
The act of
'observing'
makes God..
appear invisible..
So, how does one see God?
If God is the light at the end of the tunnel..
a dark tunnel
with light at the end
of the tunnel..
The dark space
that surrounds the earth
you go past the darkness..
and the coffee cup is White.
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >> >
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply >deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the
heavens and the earth,
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply >deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the >heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree. >> >> >>How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply
deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the
heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
It's not what I say...it's in The Code! You have to First decipher The Code...
The first word of The Code reads...'"In...."
in
/in/
preposition
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
I'll give you another example of deciphering The Code.
The Code reads: "....'God created the heavens and the earth.'"
That means the Earth and the universe were created 'at the same time', not as the 'scientific community' claim that
earth was created 5 billion years later.
5 billions later does not make sense, at the 'same time' makes more sense.
It's in The Code!
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:11:19 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <667705B7.7076@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree. >> >> >>How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply
deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the
heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
It's not what I say...it's in The Code! You have to First decipher The Code...
The first word of The Code reads...'"In...."
in
/in/
preposition
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
I'll give you another example of deciphering The Code.
The Code reads: "....'God created the heavens and the earth.'"
That means the Earth and the universe were created 'at the same time', not as the 'scientific community' claim that
earth was created 5 billion years later.
5 billions later does not make sense, at the 'same time' makes more sense.
It's in The Code!
Garbage.
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:11:19 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <667705B7.7076@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree. >> >> >>How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply
deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the
heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
It's not what I say...it's in The Code! You have to First decipher The Code...
The first word of The Code reads...'"In...."
in
/in/
preposition
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
I'll give you another example of deciphering The Code.
The Code reads: "....'God created the heavens and the earth.'"
That means the Earth and the universe were created 'at the same time', not as the 'scientific community' claim that
earth was created 5 billion years later.
5 billions later does not make sense, at the 'same time' makes more sense.
It's in The Code!
Garbage.
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:11:19 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<667705B7.7076@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Garbage.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply
deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the
heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
It's not what I say...it's in The Code! You have to First decipher The Code...
The first word of The Code reads...'"In...."
in
/in/
preposition
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
I'll give you another example of deciphering The Code.
The Code reads: "....'God created the heavens and the earth.'"
That means the Earth and the universe were created 'at the same time', not as the 'scientific community' claim that
earth was created 5 billion years later.
5 billions later does not make sense, at the 'same time' makes more sense. >> >
It's in The Code!
Call the trash gods, we've got an atheist who believes in garbage!
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:11:19 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<667705B7.7076@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Garbage.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply
deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the
heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
It's not what I say...it's in The Code! You have to First decipher The Code...
The first word of The Code reads...'"In...."
in
/in/
preposition
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
I'll give you another example of deciphering The Code.
The Code reads: "....'God created the heavens and the earth.'"
That means the Earth and the universe were created 'at the same time', not as the 'scientific community' claim that
earth was created 5 billion years later.
5 billions later does not make sense, at the 'same time' makes more sense. >> >
It's in The Code!
Well, do agree then that the word "In" is defined: "expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else."????
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:49:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <66779B35.3B95@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:11:19 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<667705B7.7076@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Garbage.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply
deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the >> >> >heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
It's not what I say...it's in The Code! You have to First decipher The Code...
The first word of The Code reads...'"In...."
in
/in/
preposition
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
I'll give you another example of deciphering The Code.
The Code reads: "....'God created the heavens and the earth.'"
That means the Earth and the universe were created 'at the same time', not as the 'scientific community' claim that
earth was created 5 billion years later.
5 billions later does not make sense, at the 'same time' makes more sense.
It's in The Code!
Well, do agree then that the word "In" is defined: "expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else."????
"expressing the situation of something that is or appears to
be enclosed or surrounded by something else."
From Google.
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:49:09 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<66779B35.3B95@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:11:19 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<667705B7.7076@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:Garbage.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:46:10 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6675AE52.6C4C@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:52:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<666DFF1A.5A4B@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Attila < wrote:
There is only one God, the God who made the tree that isn't a tree.
How do you know? Perhaps there are a bunch of gods. Or not
and trees developed by an entirely different process.
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
There is only one earth
There is only one heavens
There is only one beginning
There is only one God.
What code?
The Code!
The Code reads: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth.'
All the answers to questions of the universe are answered by simply >> >> >> >deciphering The Code.
Here is The Code:
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
That is not a code - it's a belief.
Like for example...it can be clearly seen that before God created the >> >> >> >heavens and the earth,
Or not.
that He appears to be enclosed or surrounded by...something else.
It's in The Code!
So you say.
It's not what I say...it's in The Code! You have to First decipher The Code...
The first word of The Code reads...'"In...."
in
/in/
preposition
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
I'll give you another example of deciphering The Code.
The Code reads: "....'God created the heavens and the earth.'"
That means the Earth and the universe were created 'at the same time', not as the 'scientific community' claim that
earth was created 5 billion years later.
5 billions later does not make sense, at the 'same time' makes more sense.
It's in The Code!
Well, do agree then that the word "In" is defined: "expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else."????
"expressing the situation of something that is or appears to
be enclosed or surrounded by something else."
From Google.
Well Yes, that was the link I posted >https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
But do you agree then that the word "In" is defined: "expressing the >situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded
by something else."???
--
Build a Wall.
On 2024-06-22, Attila <> wrote:
--
Build a Wall.
Please look again at your signature mark. It is not identifiable as a signature
mark because the trailing space is gone again.
On 2024-06-15 7:26 p.m., Ted wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-06-13 10:53 a.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v4crch$1pqqk$2@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com
says...
On 2024-06-10 8:29 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <FQednRinX5OV7_r7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pursent100 @gmail.com says...
Skeeter wrote:
In article <v47r4j$kra0$3@dont-email.me>,
cyfur12345@gmail.com says...
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article
<6_6cne03W4aKlv_7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pursent100 @gmail.com says...
Tim wrote:
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The
Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are
both on the same level of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the
existence of a god.
How is that not a belief?
Atheist are confident that there is no God,
...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the
existence of a god is not the same as a
belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there
fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
try ironing your head
the rerun is back
When did you leave?
Copycat is back too.
it's a rerun reunion
he will run away again
You're just jealous because I have a life while you're stuck in a
shitty trailer park.
We all know what you are about liar.
There is no we,
Certainly not in your case, I agree. Skeeter, otoh, has multiple
friends. When he says "we", it includes me and several others.
LOL! Faggot ted has trailer envy!
On 2024-06-13 3:36 p.m., % wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-06-13 10:54 a.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v4crf3$1pqqk$4@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says... >>>>
On 2024-06-10 5:29 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v47r3v$kra0$2@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com says... >>>>>>
On 2024-06-06 6:17 p.m., Skeeter wrote:
In article <v3t0rh$1kfaf$1@dont-email.me>, cyfur12345@gmail.com >>>>>>> says...
On 2024-05-12 10:14 a.m., Professor Love wrote:
Tim wrote:
On 2024-04-29 1:36 p.m., Malte Runz wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The StarmakerHow is that not a belief?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same >>>>>>>>>>>> level
of ...beliefs.
Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god. >>>>>>>>>>
Atheist are confident that there is no God, ...
That's a strawman. Not believing in the existence of a god is >>>>>>>>>>> not
the same as a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Huh? That's nonsense.
Atheists are filled with nonsense because there fools.
"there fools"
Oh, the irony!
Oh look. Dimmy found a way to post.
Look, the little humper from the trailer park is here!
good to see you rerun, did you finally heal up after the last ass
kicking you got?
I see your imagination is still in low gear. Did you learn to read
headers yet?
You sure never did.
I already said your imagination is stuck in low gear. You don't need
to keep proving it.
who cares what you said
You do, you always respond, idiot.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 505 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:19:32 |
| Calls: | 9,924 |
| Calls today: | 11 |
| Files: | 13,804 |
| Messages: | 6,348,109 |
| Posted today: | 2 |
