I'm not sure how it's possible, but you seem to have somehow missed
some pointed questions that I and others have posed to you a dozen
times or more

Any explaination why you feel it's perfectly fine for you to always
question other people's beliefs (even their sex lifes) and yet skip
answering other people questions because they reveal your own motives
and ideas?

Are you so afraid that considering them will reveal your mental
inbalance?
Are you so afraid of confronting the obvious symptoms of your
religious addictions?
Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right
and
wrong?
Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
breakdown in your personal relationships?
Do you think you've ever gotten special messages from your god or
that your god can fix all your problems?
What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today?
How about your overt attitude of righteousness or superiority?
Do you find yourself in daily conflict with science, medicine, and
education, but spend excessive amounts of your time obsessive
praying, going to church, crusades, and quoting scripture?


And here's another series of questions you AGAIN have repeatedly
failed to answer:


-------CCPed from DWG
What is the highest level of education you reached?
Do you have a professional qualification and if so what?
To what level did you study physics and biology?
What qualifies you to lecture us on your religion?
Why is the account of the creation in Genesis so confused and
scientifically illiterate?
What evidence do you have for your alleged theistic creator other
than
your customary arguments from ignorance and incredulity?
Why was your alleged intelligent designer so bad at designing?

Sandy

On Jul 22, 5:06 pm, sandi  wrote: (see above)

And still no reply from DILV.
How strange is that!
Sandy

X-No-Archive: yes


"sandi"  wrote in message 
news:1ab10c59-b15c-4d7c-b97f-fbfdaaa05e0e@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 22, 5:06 pm, sandi  wrote: (see above)

And still no reply from DILV.
How strange is that!



Maybe he has truly run out of steam, numb from the allegorical punchbag he 
is in this ng, and tired of the endless, circular, ineffective message he is 
'forced' to convey by his irrational superstitions.
He cannot answer your questions.... we all *know* that.   He cannot because 
his intellectual capabilities prevent him from rationalisation and because 
his answers would very seriously challenge his own belief system if he 
understood the implications of them..

As an aside, last night the BBC ran a loosely veiled documentary (..on John 
Barrowman - a sort of  actor/celebrity) about whether he was *born* gay or 
aquired his *gayness* at a later point.
Actually, the programme was dealing with the issue far more widely under the 
guise that he (Barrowman) was seeking the 'truth'  but in any event it ran 
across many 'scientists' and tests as well as some 'off the wall' data that 
seemed to show ring finger length, in comparison to index finger length, was 
brought about by exposure of the foetus in the womb to testosterone (..or 
more of it) which affected sexual bias after birth.......

Anyway, low and behold, during these tests and investigations they 
(Barrowman & producers?) tried to find and interview "ex-gays".
They had hundreds of organisations and contacted about 1600 gays (..from 
memory here) asking if anyone wanted to be interviewed as an "ex-gay".
They found one taker.  (Now, the inference here was that no-one else wanted 
to do it because none of these gays were ex-gays!)
Ho, hum.  A fifty something who opened up with the reason he was now an 
ex-gay.   Guess why..?   go on, have a guess.....

Yep.  That's right....  his religious conviction told him homosexuality was 
wrong so he stopped dating men, met a woman, got married and had two 
children.  Questioned  on how he *lost* his gayness he repeated that he had 
supressed (my word) his desires because of his religious belief (using such 
analogies as smoking.... he didn't now smoke was still attracted to the 
smell of cigarette smoke...!) and knew that he had "hurt" many people 
including friends and family by being gay...

I was left staring at this man in amazement that he was deluding himself as 
to his true sexuality.....and therefore probably his wife and children, that 
he WAS being dishonest at the most fundamental level - that being honest 
with oneself -  and that he was simply mis-describing himself as an ex-gay. 
He wasn't..  he was still gay (..in my view) but had completely chosen to 
suppress those desires because, and only because, his religion and his 
faith, belief and convictions insisted he do otherwise.
It is without doubt a clear example of just how insidious, mindless and 
dishonest this whole religious nonsense can be...


Mark

Footnote:  Whilst the programme and contributors all stopped short of 
evidence for a *gay* gene the 'big picture' evidence in it's entirety all 
got so close as to be almost unequivocal.

On Jul 25, 2:49 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "sandi"  wrote in message
>
> news:1ab10c59-b15c-4d7c-b97f-fbfdaaa05e0e@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 22, 5:06 pm, sandi  wrote: (see above)
>
> And still no reply from DILV.
> How strange is that!
>
> Maybe he has truly run out of steam, numb from the allegorical punchbag he
> is in this ng, and tired of the endless, circular, ineffective message he is
> 'forced' to convey by his irrational superstitions.
> He cannot answer your questions.... we all *know* that.   He cannot because
> his intellectual capabilities prevent him from rationalisation and because
> his answers would very seriously challenge his own belief system if he
> understood the implications of them..
>
> As an aside, last night the BBC ran a loosely veiled documentary (..on John
> Barrowman - a sort of  actor/celebrity) about whether he was *born* gay or
> aquired his *gayness* at a later point.
> Actually, the programme was dealing with the issue far more widely under the
> guise that he (Barrowman) was seeking the 'truth'  but in any event it ran
> across many 'scientists' and tests as well as some 'off the wall' data that
> seemed to show ring finger length, in comparison to index finger length, was
> brought about by exposure of the foetus in the womb to testosterone (..or
> more of it) which affected sexual bias after birth.......
>
> Anyway, low and behold, during these tests and investigations they
> (Barrowman & producers?) tried to find and interview "ex-gays".
> They had hundreds of organisations and contacted about 1600 gays (..from
> memory here) asking if anyone wanted to be interviewed as an "ex-gay".
> They found one taker.  (Now, the inference here was that no-one else wanted
> to do it because none of these gays were ex-gays!)
> Ho, hum.  A fifty something who opened up with the reason he was now an
> ex-gay.   Guess why..?   go on, have a guess.....


I don't think anyone really needs to guess!

Per chance, was his name Larry Craig (married US Senator caught
soliciting BJ's in a man's room) or maybe Ted Haggard (married and
head {no pun intended..well ok maybe} of the National Association of
Evangelicals} who finally confessed to a long term relationship with a
male masseuse?
Both have since professed to be "Totally Heterosexual"...........just
like U Kno Hu

> Yep.  That's right....  his religious conviction told him homosexuality was
> wrong so he stopped dating men, met a woman, got married and had two
> children.  Questioned  on how he *lost* his gayness he repeated that he had
> supressed (my word) his desires because of his religious belief (using such
> analogies as smoking.... he didn't now smoke was still attracted to the
> smell of cigarette smoke...!) and knew that he had "hurt" many people
> including friends and family by being gay...
>
> I was left staring at this man in amazement that he was deluding himself as
> to his true sexuality.....and therefore probably his wife and children, that
> he WAS being dishonest at the most fundamental level - that being honest
> with oneself -  and that he was simply mis-describing himself as an ex-gay.
> He wasn't..  he was still gay (..in my view) but had completely chosen to
> suppress those desires because, and only because, his religion and his
> faith, belief and convictions insisted he do otherwise.
> It is without doubt a clear example of just how insidious, mindless and
> dishonest this whole religious nonsense can be...
>
> Mark
>
> Footnote:  Whilst the programme and contributors all stopped short of
> evidence for a *gay* gene the 'big picture' evidence in it's entirety all
> got so close as to be almost unequivocal.

There were several fellows I had known from back in grade school who
were just "different"....(couldn't play sports, walked, talked and
acted that "way")
Looking back now, they were gay, even at that early age but they just
didn't know it yet.
I've never seen any of them since graduation from High School, none
ever came to a reunion (that I remember), but there is no doubt in my
mind they all stayed that way.

I've read some on the "gay gene" theory but still wonder if it's
nature or nurture.
Perhaps a lower (or higher) level of certain sex hormones while
growing up could tend to push one's sexuality in a "different"
direction as either more masculine women or effeminate man

"mark"  wrote in message 
news:14qdnZaF69wmPBTVnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> "sandi"  wrote in message 
> news:1ab10c59-b15c-4d7c-b97f-fbfdaaa05e0e@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 22, 5:06 pm, sandi  wrote: (see above)
>
> And still no reply from DILV.
> How strange is that!
>
>
>
> Maybe he has truly run out of steam, numb from the allegorical punchbag he 
> is in this ng, and tired of the endless, circular, ineffective message he 
> is 'forced' to convey by his irrational superstitions.
> He cannot answer your questions.... we all *know* that.   He cannot 
> because his intellectual capabilities prevent him from rationalisation and 
> because his answers would very seriously challenge his own belief system 
> if he understood the implications of them..
>
> As an aside, last night the BBC ran a loosely veiled documentary (..on 
> John Barrowman - a sort of  actor/celebrity) about whether he was *born* 
> gay or aquired his *gayness* at a later point.
> Actually, the programme was dealing with the issue far more widely under 
> the guise that he (Barrowman) was seeking the 'truth'  but in any event it 
> ran across many 'scientists' and tests as well as some 'off the wall' data 
> that seemed to show ring finger length, in comparison to index finger 
> length, was brought about by exposure of the foetus in the womb to 
> testosterone (..or more of it) which affected sexual bias after 
> birth.......
>
> Anyway, low and behold, during these tests and investigations they 
> (Barrowman & producers?) tried to find and interview "ex-gays".
> They had hundreds of organisations and contacted about 1600 gays (..from 
> memory here) asking if anyone wanted to be interviewed as an "ex-gay".
> They found one taker.  (Now, the inference here was that no-one else 
> wanted to do it because none of these gays were ex-gays!)
> Ho, hum.  A fifty something who opened up with the reason he was now an 
> ex-gay.   Guess why..?   go on, have a guess.....
>
> Yep.  That's right....  his religious conviction told him homosexuality 
> was wrong so he stopped dating men, met a woman, got married and had two 
> children.  Questioned  on how he *lost* his gayness he repeated that he 
> had supressed (my word) his desires because of his religious belief (using 
> such analogies as smoking.... he didn't now smoke was still attracted to 
> the smell of cigarette smoke...!) and knew that he had "hurt" many people 
> including friends and family by being gay...
>
> I was left staring at this man in amazement that he was deluding himself 
> as to his true sexuality.....and therefore probably his wife and children, 
> that he WAS being dishonest at the most fundamental level - that being 
> honest with oneself -  and that he was simply mis-describing himself as an 
> ex-gay. He wasn't..  he was still gay (..in my view) but had completely 
> chosen to suppress those desires because, and only because, his religion 
> and his faith, belief and convictions insisted he do otherwise.
> It is without doubt a clear example of just how insidious, mindless and 
> dishonest this whole religious nonsense can be...
>
>
> Mark
>
> Footnote:  Whilst the programme and contributors all stopped short of 
> evidence for a *gay* gene the 'big picture' evidence in it's entirety all 
> got so close as to be almost unequivocal.
>
>
Look for a copy of George Melly's autobiography: "Owning up!"
Graham

'Are you so afraid that considering them will reveal your mental
inbalance? 
Are you so afraid of confronting the obvious symptoms of your religious
addictions? 
Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right and 
wrong? 
Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
breakdown in your personal relationships? Do you think you've ever
gotten special messages from your god or that your god can fix all your
problems? 
What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today? How about your
overt attitude of righteousness or superiority? Do you find yourself in
daily conflict with science, medicine, and education, but spend
excessive amounts of your time obsessive praying, going to church,
crusades, and quoting scripture?'

REPLY:  No, to nearly all of the questions. Thanks for asking Sandi.

X-No-Archive: yes


"Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote in message 
news:24216-488F2820-568@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
> 'Are you so afraid that considering them will reveal your mental
> inbalance?
> Are you so afraid of confronting the obvious symptoms of your religious
> addictions?
> Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right and
> wrong?
> Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
> breakdown in your personal relationships? Do you think you've ever
> gotten special messages from your god or that your god can fix all your
> problems?
> What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
> belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today? How about your
> overt attitude of righteousness or superiority? Do you find yourself in
> daily conflict with science, medicine, and education, but spend
> excessive amounts of your time obsessive praying, going to church,
> crusades, and quoting scripture?'
>
> REPLY:  No, to nearly all of the questions. Thanks for asking Sandi.

...and the others......??   The ones that form part of  what remains from 
"nearly all of them" ...
Perhaps you could indicate also WHICH ones you are replying "No"   to....?


Mark

On Jul 29, 7:24 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
wrote:
> 'Are you so afraid that considering them will reveal your mental
> inbalance?
> Are you so afraid of confronting the obvious symptoms of your religious
> addictions?
> Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right and
> wrong?
> Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
> breakdown in your personal relationships? Do you think you've ever
> gotten special messages from your god or that your god can fix all your
> problems?
> What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
> belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today? How about your
> overt attitude of righteousness or superiority? Do you find yourself in
> daily conflict with science, medicine, and education, but spend
> excessive amounts of your time obsessive praying, going to church,
> crusades, and quoting scripture?'
>
> REPLY:  No, to nearly all of the questions. Thanks for asking Sandi.

Avoidism, as usual

So you DON'T have a conflict with science, education or medicine?
That's not what you'rve consistently portraying yourself when using
pseudo-science to prop up your religious delusions, saying that
education doesn't matter, and you probably even accept "faith healing"
over real medicine

And all you preaching from your self-appointed Throne of Omnipotence
isn't a sure sign of your feelings of superiority and self-
righteousness over everyone else?

Total Bullshit, as usual


BTW---How to respond to all of Dimwit's questions.... a simple yes or
no to all will suffice

On Jul 29, 7:24 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
wrote:
> 'Are you so afraid that considering them will reveal your mental
> inbalance?
> Are you so afraid of confronting the obvious symptoms of your religious
> addictions?
> Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right and
> wrong?
> Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
> breakdown in your personal relationships? Do you think you've ever
> gotten special messages from your god or that your god can fix all your
> problems?
> What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
> belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today? How about your
> overt attitude of righteousness or superiority? Do you find yourself in
> daily conflict with science, medicine, and education, but spend
> excessive amounts of your time obsessive praying, going to church,
> crusades, and quoting scripture?'
>
> REPLY:  No, to nearly all of the questions. Thanks for asking Sandi.

What kind of asinine answer is that?
Looks to me like you're still afraid to comtemplate the state of your
own mental affairs, so AGAIN I ask:
Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right and
wrong?
Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
breakdown in your personal relationships?
Do you think you've ever gotten special messages from your god or that
your god can fix all your
problems?
What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today?
How about your overt attitude of righteousness or superiority?
Do you find yourself in daily conflict with science, medicine, and
education, but spend excessive amounts of your time obsessive praying,
going to church, crusades, and quoting scripture?

I've read where you blame all of your past problems, failures, sins or
whatever you wish to label them on being an atheist.
That's a typical cop-out used by weak people to excuse their poor
behavior.
Your problem wasn't in being an atheist, it was in you being
yourself.
You fail to understand that you can't blame anybody or anything other
than your self for your deeds.
"The Devil made me do it" doesn't fly, SO ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS

Sandy