XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion, aus.religion
XPost: aus.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.democrats
XPost: alt.politics.republicans
From: fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au
They call me Trinity wrote:
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:48:04 -0700 (PDT), Richo
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 29, 5:14 pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Richo
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> [snip off topic newsgroups]
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 8:16 am, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>> >>>>>> Virgil continued the atheist membership drive, recruiting babies;
>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the person making that claim is including non-beleivers in
>>>>>>>>> gods, as well as anti-believers, in his/her definition
>>>>>>>>> of A-theism (without a god),
>>>>>>>>> then babies are certainly non-believers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As are rocks, trees, grains of sand on the beach and my dog, Deefa!
>>>>>>>> In fact Deefa is the most intelligent of all of you.. and unlike
>>>>>>>> Atheists, HE'S NOT BARKING MAD! B^D
>> >>>>
>>>>>> Atheists are people (or conscious sentient beings) capable of
>>>>>> believing - who do not believe.
>>>>>> It is stupid to refer to dogs, babies and rocks as being atheist.
>>
>> Clearly you are outnumbered, the atheist majority are desperate
>> to boost the numbers of your pathetic, tiny cult;
>>
>>>>> If they don't have a god belief then they are atheist.
>>
>> rocks, trees, grains of sand on the beach and my dog, Deefa
>> don't have a god belief, according to these atheist CRETINS,
>> that makes them Atheists!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!
>>
>> At least those sub-epsilon atheist morons recognise their
>> INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORS!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAAHHAHA!
>>
>> EVERYTHING, that has an IQ small enough not to be able to
>> form a belief!!!!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
>>
>> Watching atheists debate is like watching 'tards
>> compare their lobotomy scars to see which one had
>> the most brain removed;
>>
>>>> They are neither atheist or theist.
>>>> The concept is inapplicable.
>>> So you asert. How is it inapplicable?
>>
>>
>> Dog shit and Used Tampons,
>> Smegma and Snot all lack 'a God belief'
>>
>>> Are they god believers? No?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > Then they are atheist.
>>>
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>
>> Atheism's FINEST!!!!!
>>
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>
>
> Are you a true believer Fas?
Yes, I believe in reason, the Scientific method, Truth, Einstein's
religious viewpoint, meaningful human existence and God.
But I also believe in exposing liars and frauds, mocking irrational
and dangerous ideologies and puncturing hubris.. all of which makes the
numerous atheist cretins in Usenet deserving targets for satire and
ridicule.
So far you haven't said anything worth the trouble, but the other
lunatic atheists who argue that you have to count Dog Shit and Used
Tampons among your number, to boost your pitiful membership roll,
are certainly the subject of derisive laughter! B^D
And you appear to be the flanking attack, use by the intellectually
inept when they CANT RATIONALLY REFUTE my argument, HAVE NO FACTS
TO SUPPORT their own hilarious stupidity, and are thus incapable of
ANY RATIONAL RESPONSE to my evisceration of their cretinous crap!
When I have clearly won the logical debate, and you intellectually
dishonest atheists have NOTHING but ad hom and abuse to offer, then
I talk to you in the manner you have chosen.. and tap dance on your
carcase and to further expose your RANK HYPOCRISY;
>> I leave this here because it shows how, even when
>> debating each other, atheists quickly degenerate
>> into witless ad hom and abuse;
>>
>>>>>> We don't refer to rocks as "non smokers" - because we assume that non
>>>>>> smokers are beings capable of smoking tobacco who do not smoke
>>>>>> tobacco.
>>>>> If they don't smoke, they are non-smokers.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> They are neither smokers or non smokers.
>>>> The concept is inapplicable.
>>> You already said that. Repeating it doesn't help your argument.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Either say something new, or please kindly shut the fuck up.
That is how atheists communicate, abusive with each other, clearly,
as they do with others, as has been well documented;
# From: "John Fraser"
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID:
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
I don't recall you whining about that filthy ATHEIST shitpig's
VILE PSYCHO-SEXUAL ABUSE, you weak hypocrite!!! B^p
Clearly, atheists resort to abusive ad hom because they have no logical
argument, and as history shows, with the brutal barbarism of the Union
of Savage Slaughter and Repression (USSR) and Mao's Cultural Devolution
and Great Leap BACKWARDS (over 40,000,000 dead victims of atheist
depravity) they are vicious moral defectives.
I, on the other hand, HAVE a logical argument, which you could not rebut
in the slightest, could not refute a SINGLE point, instead you SNIPPED
it all, and chose to hypocritically WHINE, without any supporting
evidence, about 'swearing' and 'insult' B^D
As I have shown, I have provided argument AND truthful insult to those
who deserve it, while you pathetic hypocrites who WHINE about bourgeois
manners snip all the rational argument and blithely IGNORE the common
practice of 'swearing and 'insult' among atheists!
When *I* call someone a fucking moron, it is only AFTER providing the
logical PROOF THAT THEY ARE!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHA
And that's the bit you snip and ignore!
It's a test I run, for sincerity. You failed, with a 9.5 on the
Hypocrisy Richter scale;
> Then why do you swear at and insult other
> people so?
Show where I have unjustifiably insulted someone! B^[
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
