JasmineCorp Directory   
  
Usenet News Group Archives!!!

Usenet Groups:

 

 

 

 

 

Re: Evolving Evolution... the " Big Bang " theory is a Catholic priests invention ( believe it, or not )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup: alt.athiesm
Posted by: Denis Loubet
2007-01-04 08:55:36


"Bill Carver" wrote in message
news:wgcarverns-C02EFF.22211703012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article ,
> "Denis Loubet" wrote:
>
>
>
>> But believers in god did that on 9/11/01. Did you forget that? And it was
>> pretty clear they did it for religious reasons.
>
> I'm sure this answer will light a fire under some people's posteriors,
> but the God of Islam which the terrorists invoked is not God.

It's god to them exactly the same way your god is god to you. You're both
believers. I see no difference.

>> No. I know of no atheist that considers himself a supreme being. You'll
>> just
>> have to create another straw man.
>
> Let me ask it plainly then. Is there any being superior to man?

I have no idea. Cheetas can run faster than me, elephants are stronger,
whales can dive deeper and hold their breath longer, and eagles can fly! Not
to mention that bacteria has us beat in numbers.

>> You've already created the strawmen -- about atheists thinking they're
>> supreme beings -- to slander atheists with accusations of arrogance. A
>> slander that Christianity has pursued for 2000 years. Forgive me if that
>> makes it difficult for me to separate you from the evils that
>> Christianity
>> in general engenders. You seem to be going out of your way to be part of
>> the
>> problem.
>
> I don't think so.

Well of course YOU don't think so. To you, you're the hero.

> You're just having difficulty digesting a
> philosophical statement.

No, you're having difficulty issuing one.

> by "you" in the sentence of "you being your
> own god", I should have said "man" being his own god. Sorry if i
> confused the issue and made it personal there.

Irrelevant. I know of no atheist who thinks that either.

>> And you're free to do that. Quietly.
>>
>> > To allow public prayer in a school so long as it is
>> > condoned by a majority of parents.
>>
>> And fuck the children and parents who don't condone it. How freedom
>> loving
>> is that?
>
> they can use that time to read, do homework or whatever else they choose
> to do at that time. Use the time to "meditate" if they choose.

I'm going to pretend that you know perfectly well how peer-pressure works
and are making a joke, and not just assume you're maliciously stupid.

> I'd ask that since you don't want me to pray before a city council
> meeting, that you also use that other word "quietly"

I never said I don't want you to pray before a city council meeting. There
you go lying again.

I see how this works, I make a statement, then you lie about my statement.
This should make communication really easy!

>> Satanists too? If you're willing to tolerate all religious symbols
>> displayed
>> with equality, I'll be willing to try such an experiment.
>
> Certainly. It's offensive to me, but I don't have the right to ban such
> expression so long as the display is considered "decent" in the eyes of
> the community. by that I mean no things like Christ in a bottle of
> urine etc...

So only the majority religion gets to put an expression up. That's what the
code phrase "decent in the eyes of the community" means.

>> But I don't want my tax dollars paying for it, it's gonna be expensive.
>>
>> > Just as you may place
>> > a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
>> > you're your own god.
>>
>> There you go again, lying for your cause.
>
> Wow! You learned something from the great Ronaldus Maximus. (Reagan) :)

Since I'm not my own god, you're lying about me.

>> > I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
>> > death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
>> > beliefs.
>>
>> You mean for breaking the laws of a soverign nation? I would prefer they
>> not
>> go over there for the purpose of breaking them.
>
> Unjust laws should be broken. Study Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and
> countless other great civil rights leaders of the past.

And they took their lumps without whining about it. What's your excuse?

>> > All mankind has the right to speak under our first amendment.
>
>> No, that only applies to American soil. You seem very confused.
>
> Our founding fathers believed that the rights we have to life, liberty
> and the persuit of happiness which is the foundation of your government
> today did not come from the constitution, but were endowed by the
> creator.

Notice how you moved the goalposts from the first amendment to the
constitution to a completely different document, the Declaration of
Independence? That was quite a bit of sleight of hand and I almost didn't
catch it.

No, not really, actually it was pretty pathetically obvious.

So, are you going to admit that the first amendment only applies to American
soil, or not? It's only your intellectual integrity at stake.

> If you don't believe in a creator, then think of the belief as
> a natural law of humanity. It knows no borders.

But the first amendment does know borders. Admit it.

> It's because of people
> that are not willing to let people suffer tyranny that places like
> Czechoslovakia (yes check my spelling everyone it's right) Yugoslavia,
> Poland, East Germany and other eastern bloc countries are free to this
> day. It started with one Polish Pope and Lech Walesa. You should read
> their biographies. Both are very inspiring.

I'm sure they are. But it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

>> > Finally, you are free. Free from God. I see no shackles.
>>
>> I do. Name the highest government official you can think of who's an
>> avowed
>> atheist.
>
> I'm sure there are plenty,

And you base this on...nothing? That figures. That seems to be a pattern
with you.

> however since the vast majority of this
> country believes in a higher power of some sort, I can probably bet it's
> a problem of relationship and common belief. But heck... form an
> athiest party if you'd like. You're free in this nation to do that.
> But I doubt anyone would be elected.

Damn right. 2000 years of religious slander can have that effect.

It's no coincidence that atheists are the most distrusted minority.

>> > I see no one
>> > preventing you from having this conversation. I see no one at your
>> > door
>> > threatening your life and I have freely listened to you. We don't
>> > agree, but I will fight to the death to save your right to do so.
>>
>> But you'll lie about me to keep me distrusted. How fucking kind of you.
>
> People only language like that only when they don't have the words to
> say what is really on their mind.

And people use quotes like that to avoid addressing the point.

You deliberately and maliciously lie about my statements, and thus add your
contribution to the slander that your religion has directed at atheists for
2000 years.

You've done it several times in this thread already.

Pardon me if your platitude about defending my right to free speech rings a
bit hollow in the context of your continued deliberate mischaracterizations.

> Dennis, I can say with certainty that I have probably been the most
> civil person here on this board talking to you.

No. Most of the atheists on this board don't lie about me to my face.

> What motivation have I
> to lie about you.

I'm assuming it's religious, but if you have another explanation for why
you're lying about me, I'll listen.

> I know that somewhere behind all these bits on the
> screen which is the only way I can have a conversation is a Man created
> by a God who's lost. May you find Him in your lifetime.

Let me ask you a question: Do you agree with your god that I deserve to be
tortured forever in hell?


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com


 

 

 

More >> 

Domain Registration:
.com .org .net
.info .biz .us