XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian   
   XPost: aus.religion.christian   
   From: danielsan1977@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/21/2012 7:42 PM, DanielSan wrote:   
   > On 1/21/2012 7:40 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> On 22-January-2012 1:48 PM, DanielSan wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> short memory eh, Nappisan..   
   >>   
   >> 17/1/12   
   >>   
   >> >> EOD. there's no point in discussing further. you're not going to   
   >> change   
   >> >> your mind, and neither am I. unfortunately (for you) you can't see how   
   >> >> silly you appear to 'normal' ppl.   
   >> >   
   >> > I can't make you believe that the sun rises in the east no matter   
   >> what I say nor can I make you believe that atheism is the LACK OF THEISM.   
   >> >   
   >> > But, you're probably right. There really is no point in discussing   
   >> further. You're wrong and refuse to correct yourself (or even realize   
   >> that you ARE wrong).   
      
   I missed this portion.   
      
   I didn't agree to disagree.  I agreed that you're wrong.   
      
   >> >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> you couldn't get your story straight if your life depended on it..   
   >   
   > I really don't know what you're talking about. What leads you to believe   
   > that?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)