XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian   
   XPost: aus.religion.christian   
   From: danielsan1977@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/21/2012 6:17 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   > On 22-January-2012 1:03 PM, DanielSan wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/21/2012 3:46 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>> On 22-January-2012 5:44 AM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:   
   >>>> On Jan 21, 1:41 am, DanielSan wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/21/2012 1:36 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 21-January-2012 7:28 PM, DanielSan wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/20/2012 11:25 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 21-January-2012 6:10 PM, Olrik wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Le 2012-01-21 02:01, felix_unger a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 21-January-2012 5:56 PM, NEMO wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> _ G O D _ the COck-sucking retard!   
   >>>>>>>>>> atheists themselves are one of the best arguments against   
   >>>>>>>>>> atheism. are   
   >>>>>>>>>> there any happy atheists?   
   >>>>>>>>> I am.   
   >>>>>>>>> Besides, all atheists share is the lack of beliefs in some   
   >>>>>>>>> "god" or   
   >>>>>>>>> "gods".   
   >>>>>>>>> Anything else is up for grabs.   
   >>>>>>>>> You should know that by now, felix_unger.   
   >>>>>>>> nope. humans are not machines. our beliefs determine our behaviour,   
   >>>>>>> Yep.   
   >>>>>>>> and atheism is a belief   
   >>>>>>> Atheism is not a belief. Atheists themselves have wide and varying   
   >>>>>>> beliefs, however, just like those that don't collect stamps have   
   >>>>>>> wide   
   >>>>>>> and varying beliefs.   
   >>>>>> well you got one out of two right   
   >>>>> Nope. Two out of two. Atheism is no more a belief than not collecting   
   >>>>> stamps is a hobby.   
   >>>> Beautiful clarity! That's the best metaphor I've ever seen regarding   
   >>>> the definition of atheism. I'm going to be quoting you from time-to-   
   >>>> time on that one.   
   >>>   
   >>> LOL! Daniel, you have fan!   
   >>   
   >> That's nice.   
   >>   
   >> How about actually responding to my post?   
   >   
   > didn't we both agree to disagree?   
      
   No.  You lied and I told the truth.   
      
   > we have discussed ad nauseam.   
      
   You mean that you lied ad nauseam and I told the truth ad nauseam.   
      
   > there's   
   > no point in rehashing because you don't address what is put to you.   
      
   And there's another lie.   
      
   > you   
   > brand anything you don't agree with as lies, and the authors as liars,   
      
   What should I call falsehoods told with a deliberate intent to deceive?   
     Candy bars?   
      
   > and spruik the atheist mantra ad nauseaum until you come up against a   
   > brick wall,   
      
   Like what?   
      
   > which you then skirt around   
      
   For example?   
      
   > and try to direct the discussion   
   > back to your stock lines,   
      
   Why don't you provide examples of what I allegedly do?   
      
   > and we're back to square one. either that or   
   > you wet your pants, and just cut and run like you did with fasgnadh.   
      
   I didn't cut and run with fasgnadh.  I couldn't make head or tails of   
   that mess.   
      
   > I'm   
   > not getting on that merry-go-round with you again. so you can keep   
   > trying, but it won't work.   
      
   Fine.  You don't want to tell the truth, I can't make you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)