meredith,

I have just written a 350 word post in answer to your last missive that won’t be sent, as I figured we are not getting anywhere, so there is no point in continuing. I’m afraid we will have to live with disagreement on a number of issues. No hard feelings.

David

Ojnab,

If the AFA can get the signs on buses, it will. The point you make about voluntary euthanasia is not an Atheist issue only. as it has the potential to affect all people, even the religious. But fear not, a system to allow people to die with dignity will be introduced one day. All secular groups are fighting very hard for that to happen.

And you are very correct about the underestimation of the number of Atheists in Australia. That will also become better known one day. So, hang in there.

David

david[quote<< think you should take my advice and retire from this thread if only because you are not winning anyone over to a religious point of view....>>

[i dont care what you believe][or what any believe
[its up to them][not me,NOT YOU]

if im trying to convert anyone[thats your opinion]but to be clear which church am i pushing?[which religion?[your delusion knows no bounds]!

[bro believe as you chose[just dont be thinking you can re-educate me in one of your retraining-camps mate,you can jam your athistic oppression where the sun dont shine[makes no difference to me]

whatever the hell you chose[just dont try to speak for me]wake ya self up before you try to wake me[ya ignorant twit]

>> In fact,religious-fundamentalism is the greatest support for Atheism that Atheists could hope for.>>

im glad you think so[religious people for me are by and large mindless drones[but then so too are most athiest's]

AM I CONVERTING ANYONE YET retard?

>>When your numbers decrease,>>

my number is one[me]how much more you expect to decrease'my numbers'retard?

>>as they will,ours will do likewise.>>

your numbers will decrease likewise?bro you dont have any idea how clever your sounding.

>> Bring on that day!<<

as i say
you have no idea what ignorant ravings your putting down in words

[belive as you chose]
but dont be telling me i dont have the right to believe as i chose,

your not big enough to begin to make me change what i chose to believe[dont you realise how your one post has set back athiesm[and how much more]against those you seek to rule OVER;

as others have said i hope you get your advert[just make sure you got your phone number on it][and as its a political spin dont forget to write written and autherised by YOU on it too]

so they will know who to sue[you are the dumbest athiest i ever come across]try to put it on a bus in sydney[or better melbourne[they will chew you to pieces]

being nice just dont work for some,
i tried to be nice,clearly with you its futile

The Sunday Sermon is as follows, taken from the King James Version of the Bible:

Matt 18: 21-22 “Then came Peter to him, and said , Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”

For the mathematically challenged, the advice by Jesus is that forgiveness for transgression should happen 490 times.

1 Peter 3:33 “Who, when he was reviled , reviled not again…”

Matt 5:39 “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

And let us not forget the very pertinent one liner by Matthew:

Matt 7:20 “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Here endeth the lesson.

David

HOLLY ssshit
i seen it all
a bible thumping ATHIEST

i seen it all now
LOL

may god be with you in your endeavours
[your holyness]

may you tend your sheep[flock]
as the neo [new] age mosus

of [over?]the athiest-icly challengd sheeple
[needing leaders to bleat for them]

AFA Inc.
David,
You have painted yourself in to the same corner most exuberant enthusiasts do.
That of the seed issue being agreed. The issue is now about YOUR version of Atheism. (I and other have suggested that your current stance isn't helping your cause...Atheism or their respect for your reasoning)

What every one is trying to tell you that either your expression of your views are inadequate and/or your understanding of what constitutes a belief is naive.

No one has attacked you personally (ad hominem) but rather the import of your words. Yet your taking the contradictions personally you have attack others as people (I gave you two examples) disputing their reasoning abilities without giving reason.

Your expression is now leaning towards non existent conspiracy and a bogus semantical argument several dictionaries’ definitions are wrong.

While I have most of Dawkins’ books and understand and support his attacking religiosity in public policy he does when looking at private rights express his views in absolutism (demonstateble unprovable belief i.e. no one has absolute knowledge of the future ).

To be absolutely fair he has his right to a personal belief but not the right to impose that on someone else private views. Think of it like this two people arguing about which AFL is the greatest team…St Kilda or Collingwood. Ultimately logic has little or nothing to do with the determination it all depends on your criteria.
But to impose allegiance to Collingwood because it has more premierships is dubious reasoning/logic. Likewise is both ludicrous and unacceptable on many levels to allow either side to impose their views onto public policy i.e. education etc.
In absolute terms the analogy is sound.

End

Sancho: << Am I the only one who can't understand a blind word of one under god's posts?

[...]

I can only imagine this is what happens when schizophrenics get onto computers, rather than standing outside train stations screaming scripture at goth teenagers. >>

No Sancho, you're not the only one.