baby don't hurt me don't hurt me no mo'

  Mr Dogevoli, you are the 'Devil of wrong thinking' , preaching a message of idol worship and separation from the "ONE" with the cosmos (father) , as story Jesus, (an atheist Jewish Buddha), tried to explain. The best Jesus, you claim to worship, would call you Satan and a hypocrite, as he scolded Peter ... But of course your Jesus was the other story Jesus, as is also found in the distorted Bible and preached at the church. Pick your Jesus ...... the jesus of talented Bible Paul is half nuts ...... as most of the Bible is nuts .....

  Good luck with your studies, I AM glad you care .... the Christ is me, I am atheist .... RRS is "saving" and you are the "enemy to love" (to understand and heal) Stop killing my old buddy atheist Jesus/Buddha ..... must I come to your church temple and smash the place, as jesus did ? .....

The time has come to sue the Pope, for the sakes of peace and brother/sister hood, as we are one family , we are all god, as all is ONE.  No more superstition .....

  Read that Bible yourself, instead of being spoon fed religion dogma. Check out science.  Jesus doesn't save, .... that Jesus message of zero superstition and "ONE" with the cosmos (god) "SAVES" ......

  Thanks for your E-mail, now wise up and get to "saving" the religious, in the spirit of atheist Jesus, who shouted, "Ye are god(s), this is the "kingdom/heaven NOW, We are ONE with the ALL of whatever there is, was, and will ever be'  ..... SIMPLE !

Please think a whole lot more on all this reality. Religion dogma is poison devil shit, and it's a huge problem on this planet.   

     Keep in touch, Mr. Dogevoli ..... keep the AWE, call it G awe d , if you like, but hell is the religion lie of separation and idol worship you preach ..... REPENT NOW !    

To quote Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder;

"And for those of us who speak English?"

Good for you. We don't care.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion apart from vague claims of introspection?

Do you have any evidence for this assertion

EDIT: Never mind, I should have asked him to put it in English before asking that question.

Are you being stupid on purpose or were you merely dropped on your head as a child? Surely you must see that it is an internal contradiction for a person to be mad at and have a grudge against an entity which said person does not believe exists?

This is the first correct thing you have said (at least with respect to me). My parents were not Christian either. Nor my uncles or grandparents (or their parents). Atheism runs in the family. I am proud to say that.

Love is an emotion with a neurochemical basis that exists for the evolutionary reason of its beneficial function with respect to the propogation of genetic material. These powerful mating attractions are the basis of sex and hence . It is likely that the concomitant emotions that go along with lust are either by-products of this selection process or have benefits per se in the propogation of genetic material. More study is needed to address this hypothesis.

Unfortunately, your father's unsubstantiated assertion does not count as a rational argument, furthermore, it does not establish the existence of the being whose existence is under discussion (hence, you are begging the question). Shed your initial assumptions, then we can talk.

You obviously have a misunderstanding. The "devil" does not exist, nor does a realm which you will depart to post-mortem. These concepts are irrational and not based on evidence and have no epistemological rigor. Again, I put the question to you how a person can support an entity which said person does not believe exists.

Also, learn to fucking write in English.

Again, why attempt to frighten your interlocutor (by the way, you are commiting an irrelevant ad baculum fallacy) with a concept they don't believe in? I suspect you have absolutely no idea what your interlocutors believe. This being the case, what makes you think you can second-guess them?

This is not an argument, it is a disjointed set of assertions which have no cogency, coherency or meaning. Read a book on basic grammar and sentence formation, otherwise, don't post. Illiterates and keyboards clearly don't mix.

Well I very much doubt that the Big Bang resulted from a "who" since a "who" implies an agent, which implies requisites that in turn imply physical systems (hence the mere question is a stolen concept fallacy). At present we do not have the answer to this question. It is possible that we never will. Nonetheless, I utterly fail to see what relevance this has to anything whatsoever regarding whatever you were attempting to expand upon (I couldn't really discern since you are speaking gibberish). Thus far, you've concocted a set of syntactically incorrect, disjointed, poorly spelled, poorly argued, fallacious, meaningless, irrational assertions. When you have something of substance, you shall be welcomed. Until then, get back to primary school.

If a Xian can see evil in one's face, what would you see in this face?

"And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been lain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."(Revelation 5:6)

Great holy fuck!!  Oddly enough, this is the only physical description I could find.

It's a pity that god did not change his spelling for the better.

What we are dealing with here is an inspired text, people!

I've already canceled my weekend plans to work out the Qabalistic sequences and correspondences that are only beginning to reveal themselves to me. Can't wait 'til I've transliterated that email into Hebrew, Greek and Arabic, since only then will the truly celestial nature of the text make sense.

And now to invoke my Holy Guardian Angel,

P.

If your life changed for the better good for you, but why give the credit to a figment of your imagination? I have only your word to go on as to what constitutes "better" in your opinion, but if believing in the existence of a non-existent deity helped you turn the corner then just think how much more you might have achieved in that direction if you had placed more faith in something a little more pertinent - namely yourself.

The quote from you has been presented in a very disjointed manner but it seems you are of the delusion that only another non-existent being "the devil" has the authority or intelligence to challenge the existence of your own personal favourite figment. This is just an extension to the original delusion and is equally farcical when examined in the cold light of reason. For your own personal sanity I would advise you to address this problem of yours sooner rather than later. Questioning absurdity presented as fact is not evil, by the way. Without the capacity to do it we would all have died out long ago. It is a simple case of distinguishing fact from fiction and applying that skill when assessing the reality of your environment. You do it yourself every day when in crossing the road you accept the evidence of your eyes and desist (hopefully) from stepping out in front of oncoming traffic.

Another barely intelligible remark, seemingly based on a particularly bad Hollywood film from some years ago. But your last inference - that one can only state one's disbelief in a fanciful concept if one is motivated by a grudge against it - is itself symptomatic of where your "faith" has led you into a contempt for logic (one cannot have a grudge against something that does not exist). Watch out for that traffic!

Everything you say there is absolutely true. Except to a christian it seems "bad times" must now include times when their own particular delusion is challenged by ration and reason. When your faith pressures you into defending the indefensible against simple logic then maybe it's time for you too to re-evaluate your disposition to hold on to it. I'm really serious about that potential traffic problem by the way!

Yes, in so far as what it means to me personally and in so far as the dictionary defines it. Applying that love to a fictional character however is hardly a clever practise in terms of maintaining good mental health.

Your dad was giving you good advice about remorse and atonement for doing wrong. He phrased it badly however. Your debt is not to a fictional invisible deity but to the person - and by extension the society - you have wronged. Otherwise the distinction he drew between wrongs committed through ignorance and wilful malice is quite astute and correct.

If by "the devil" you are still referring to the fictional character in point 2 above then your statement means nothing to anyone who does not buy into the same simplistic delusion. If however you use "the devil" as an allegory for evil as expressed through human action then you can rest assured that I do not support it.

You have my word on it. Since neither eternal damnation nor "the devil" exists, I am quite unable to do it.

The last one.

No one.

    I loved your itemized answers,  everyone of them. The post  from dogevoli reads like some one who doesn't speak English as a first language,  or he is one of those who caught religion early and decided not to think again for the rest of his life.

    By the way any dictionary will tell you we can be rational, or irrational or even talk of rationale. But ration is a way to allot resources  food, gas,ammo etc.