This one's too dumb not to post...

Posted by Gremlin on 28 June 1999 at 17:53:26:

Graham Wellington wrote in message <7l66tb$vqg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...

I see it's furlough week at the institution again. You people just don't get run over by busses often enough.

Lemee hold my breath for a few minutes and try to think down to your level on this...

>10) ATHEISM CANNOT PROVIDE A GOOD ANSWER.
>Atheists tried to prove to you that there is no God but they did not in
>any way provide any proofs that their disbelief in GOD is justified or
>even logical.


I don't believe everything I read. Logical, justified, and, arguably, a good idea in general.

>To this moment they cannot provide an answer on how the universe came to
>existence.


Do you know the formula for Coca-cola, or is the stuff made by a god?

>There are no collaborating evidents to Show that the universe is
>eternal.


Um...Twinkies have a shelflife of twenty years, and the universe is a lot bigger than a Twinkie. Okay?

And what, exactly, has an eternal universe got to do with a lack of gods?

>No atheists can prove that acausal events governed by the
>unpredictability of quantum mechanic caused the universe to appear.


Which atheists have tried?

>Not an iota of observation proves that the universe is in a state of
>timeloop.


And history never repeats--except for every time you JesusCrispies post something.

>ZIP.

CODE

>All these are unproven theories and assertion /assumptions.


A theory and an assertion are two entirely different things.

>So how is it different than the assertion/assumption that GOD created
>the universe?


Remember how a theory is different than an assertion?

>9) ATHEISTS CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD did not exists.


We'll pretend that this sentence makes sense.

>The default belief of humankind is that GOD exists


Huh? What, it's encoded into the homosapien bios now? Why wasn't I told...

>.In all society and communities the belief in a DEITY or deities is as
>old as humankind itself.


Humankind is three million years old; religion is a few millennia;um...you're lying again, aren't you...

>Atheism is new and atheism is in the minority.Therefore the burden of
>proof that God did not exist is on them.


New *and* improved, actually. Of course, after six months on the market, we had to change the name to CokeII.

>The analogy of invisible Pink Unicorn is not acceptable.


Bitch! Dis' *not* the IPU!

>Because mankind as a whole never accepted Unicorns to exist.


What has mankind, as a whole, ever accepted to exist? Name one thing, and I'll give you the negatives of your mother.

>Whereas mankind as a whole accepted the existence of GOD/s.


Shouldn't that be 'god.com/s'?

>UNDER no condition have atheists proof that God did not exist.


Sure we have. It was in a book. Which books are *you* reading?

>8) ATHEISTS ADMIT THEY DON:T KNOW.


Any chance you could start proofing your punctuation?

>Atheists admit they don't know for sure about this and about that.


On *the other thing*, however, we are all experts.

>And yet they rejected any possibility of God.


Which atheist did that? We'll flog him in the next meeting.

Atheists don't reject all possibility; we just don't bother believing in faery tales.

>If a man admits that he doesn't know completely about certain issue,he
>can't deny that there is a possibility that his stand on that issue is
>wrong.


Apart from the typing skills, that sentence was the first to make any sense.

>Yet atheist instead of saying " I don't know whether to believe or to
>disbelieve in GOD " say " I disbelieve in GOD "


You're lying again. Every atheist I've talked to just doesn't bother believing in the unlikely.

>Therefore their rejection ( since they admit they don't know) of God is
>based on mere hatred and emotion and is not logical..


Listen, Spock: the rejection of the absurd has nothing to do with hatred. Hatred is when we blow up churches. And you don't get to use the wod 'therefore' until you have something from which a conclusion can be drawn.

>7) ATHEISTS ARGUMENT AGAINST PASCAL WAGER is FAULTY.
>Atheists argue that PASCAL Wager is a defective theory because you might
>end up in a hell of a different GOD.
>Here again atheists failed to see that the argument is based on
>probability.
>If you are a theist then you might or might not go to hell.
>But if you are an atheist there are only two possibilites to you.
>ETERNAL DEATH, or ETERNAL HELL


Lemee show you a theory here: your godexists, but is so shy that it never shows itself. So, those of us who don't believe in him are smiled upon, and the rest of you twits all go directly to hell for incessantly praying at him. Hell is a preternatural restraining order.

There. I wrote it down. Now you have to believe in it. Code of Morons, or something.

>Various religions tolerated other religions but never tolerated ATHEISM.


Until one day atheism turned into a beautiful swan, and the ugly duckling was no more. We've heard this one.

>ISLAM for example in QURAN says that as long as somebody believes in GOD
>and the DAY of Judgement God might forgive him whether he is a Christian
>or Jews or even Star worshipper.


Islam, youslam, weallslam for islam...

>Hinduism also said that Nivana can be achieved by being righteous and
>worshipping one of God's many manifestation.


And Douglas Adams said that Vogon destroyer ships hang in the air in exactly the same manner that bricks don't. So is that canon to reality too? Can we submit it in time to slip it into the 2000 Encyclopaedia Britannica?

>BUT all religions offer just one exit to atheists: ETERNAL HELL.
>THEREFORE atheists can hope for eternal DEATH at best ,( if there is no
>GOD) and eternal HELL at worst.


Yikes. Logical Thing Number Two. You;re not calling atheism a religion. Good for you; have a star sticker...

>6) ATHEISM IS CONTRARY TO HUMAN NATURE.


This from someone who considers 'human nature' to be a non sequiter.

>The HUMAN nature is to believe in GOD and higher beings.


Again with your substandard bios. Not me. I use Amigas. I'm fluent in Arexx, and I can multitask.

>Atheism can only flourished in a TOTALITARIAN state such as communist
>China and former USSR.


Is that what existed before the *present* USSR?

>When the ban on organized religion is lifted ,thousands of Russian are
>flocking again to churches and synagogues.


Seen on Russian church marquee: 'FREE BEER!'

>Thousands of Brave Chinese defy the authority to worship JESUS CHRIST.


Is JESUS CHRIST an acronym, or are you shouting again?

>Atheists are outcasts and perverts in the history of mankind.


Yeah. Bill Gates, Steve Hawking, Arthur C. Clarke...what a bunch of losers...

>5)Don't you atheists wonder why they can influence so many people?


Because people are stupid?

>Because of their sincerity ,honesty and miracles !!!


I was close, though.

>Their lasting impression on their followers resulted in generations of
>ardent believers that are willing to die and overcome opression.


And not a few who *weren't* willing to die, but got to anyway.

>THE Followers of JESUS were not only willing to die for him but also
>transformed THE ROMAN EMPIRE :-


...into a world of American Gladiators.

>BUT imposters such as Stalin and Hitler were completely abandoned after
>their demise.


Tell that to A&E.

>Surely this proves to you atheists that there are something significant
>and extraordinary about these spiritual leaders.??


They all liked cheese?

And stop calling me Shirley.

--Gremlin
admin@gremlin.net
http://gremlin.net

'This is a hell of a way to spend Easter week end...'
--Jesus Christ [tm]

Follow Ups:



38.31.85.253 - 38.31.85.253