Atheism vs Christianity

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

Atheism vs Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Theism and Special Privilege
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/3cc405563ba2a0ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:04 pm
From: Saint Onan

On Dec 1, 3:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist for
> claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was not
> sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> troops into Iraq?
>
> Exactly what is the difference between the two?

No difference. God's fessed up, Trance. He really did tell that guy to
hit the woman's car.

http://stuffgodhates.com/?p=769

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:07 pm
From: Dev

You missed the point because you're garbage.

On Dec 3, 3:38 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your thread title is misleading. You aren't talking about "Theism and
> special privilege," since obviously Bush and the irate driver are both
> theists. Bush gets special privilege because he's "The Decider," not
> because he's a theist.
>
> On Nov 30, 11:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist for
> > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was not
> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > troops into Iraq?
>
> > Exactly what is the difference between the two?
>
> > In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out there
> > committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> > credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
>
> > Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> > By ROBERT CROWE
> > San Antonio Express-News
> > Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
>
> > The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> > South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> > because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> > the other car off the road, police said.
>
> > The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> > the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
>
> > "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> > taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> > Sheriff's Office.
>
> > The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> > her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> > excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> > vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> > barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
>
> > Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> > injuries.
>
> > "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> > this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
>
> > The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> > driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
>
> > Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> > nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> > was unsatisfactory.
>
> >http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
>
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:09 pm
From: Joe

On Dec 3, 7:56 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your thread title is misleading. You aren't talking about "Theism and
> > special privilege," since obviously Bush and the irate driver are both
> > theists. Bush gets special privilege because he's "The Decider," not
> > because he's a theist.
>
> Ah. So it's okay for "The Decider" to be crazy as a loon but no the driver?
>

I don't think war-mongering OR running a bad driver off the road are
"okay."

But neither has to do with theism per se. People do fucked-up shit,
and sometimes theists blame their fucked-up shit on God. Atheists, by
contrast, blame it on theists. ;)

>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 11:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> > > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist
> > for
> > > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was
> > not
> > > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > > troops into Iraq?
>
> > > Exactly what is the difference between the two?
>
> > > In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out
> > there
> > > committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> > > credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
>
> > > Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> > > By ROBERT CROWE
> > > San Antonio Express-News
> > > Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
>
> > > The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> > > South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> > > because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> > > the other car off the road, police said.
>
> > > The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> > > the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
>
> > > "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> > > taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> > > Sheriff's Office.
>
> > > The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> > > her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> > > excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> > > vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> > > barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
>
> > > Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> > > injuries.
>
> > > "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> > > this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
>
> > > The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> > > driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
>
> > > Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> > > nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> > > was unsatisfactory.
>
> > >http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
>
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> > and
> > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> > speech
> > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> > US
> > > Supreme Court Justice
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christians, please define what you mean by God.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e79397d59ea1ce0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:05 pm
From: Joe

On Dec 1, 9:49 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:50 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 3:16 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > So what you are saying is that you get "glimpses of God"
> > > but you don't know who or what God is for sure -
>
> > No, what I am saying is that I know for sure God is Love,
>
> God is a Christian deity for which there is no evidence that it
> exists. Love is an emotion that exists without God. Love is not
> evidence God exists. Atheists feel love, Hindus feel love, chimps feel
> love. Love and God are not the same thing.
>
> > and Love is
> > infinite,
>
> Love is an emotion that ceases upon death.
>
> > and I experience the infinity of Love as ever-increasing
> > love in me.
>
> I'm just a bit skeptical about this claim, judging by the seething
> hatred you show towards those who don't recognize your overpowering
> personal divinity. And your "love" isn't infinite; like everyone
> else's it will cease upon death.
>

Aw, Neil! I don't hate you. You are off your rocker!

> > To increase without bound is actually the definition of
> > infinity.
>
> But that's got nothing to do with your finite emotions.
>
> > > all you
> > > know is that this being/entity is all powerful and all
> > > encompassing and has the ability to do what it will
> > > with you. It also likes to be glorified.
>
> > That is a human guess at what God "likes" according to a human
> > perspective.
>
> You know about as much about God as an atheist does. Less, even.
>
> > I would say, rather, that God deserves to be glorified, and when a
> > finite being encounters Him,
>
> How could a finite being know when they have encountered God? God is
> allegedly "incomprehensible" and "unfathomable."
>
> > that finite being's natural reaction is
> > to give Him glory, or else to hate Him if the being hates Love.
>
> You really do have an active imagination, don't you?
>
> > > Still, with all of this
> > > it remains a mystery?
>
> > Infinity cannot be rendered comprehensible to a finite being. God is
> > the ultimate Mystery.
>
> And yet there you were, just a few sentences ago, spouting off about
> infinity. Further evidence you consider yourself to be an infinite
> being. Hey, if you're talking to Jesus, can you ask him what stocks I
> should invest in? Thanks...> > On Nov 30, 5:21 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > Actually Joe, I was using it purely as a definition.
> > > > > It seems to me that when people believe in God, God is different
> > > > > for every person who believes in him/her. Some people believe
> > > > > God is a person and has human form. Others say, no, God is a
> > > > > spirit, and the third lot suggest that God is both.
> > > > > Then there is the metaphysical side of things, where people don't
> > > > > relate to God as anything like a human entity, but more like the
> > > > > power of life, or the consciousness of the universe, the oneness
> > > > > of all life, etc. My question was limited to asking what Christians
> > > > > thought their God was, hence my asking for a definition from
> > > > > them. There is no ulterior motive - just being respectful of
> > > > > something I can't relate to, or believe in.
>
> > > > I wold say that all the above descriptions are limited ideas of
> > > > attributes of God. Limited ideas are the only ideas we can have, of
> > > > an infinite Entity, so I prefer to acknowledge that for the most part
> > > > God is Unknown. I believe He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus
> > > > Christ, as previously as the Word to the prophets of old. I believe
> > > > the Word remains with us, in the Holy Eucharist, so that there is no
> > > > limit to how much Love will reveal both now and forever, and yet
> > > > everything He has revealed at any time will still be nothing compared
> > > > with the infinity that lies still hidden in Love. He will always be
> > > > for the most part Unknown to us as the Infinite Mystery, but He has
> > > > revealed enough for us to know Him as Love, and that is Enough, for
> > > > Love is Infinite. And the infinity of Love is Incarnate, in the
> > > > Eucharist.
>
> > > > > On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> No, it is your move. Where do we go with this?
>
> > > > > > Or did you actually only honestly want to know what God is?
>
> > > > > > On Nov 27, 12:01 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > So far?
> > > > > > > Do you want more?
> > > > > > > If so, please add.
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 27, 1:10 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 5:42 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Okay Joe
> > > > > > > > > Let's try and get some sense here.
> > > > > > > > > So, your definition of God is going to be:
> > > > > > > > > God is:
> > > > > > > > > Unique (in that there is only one God).
> > > > > > > > > Universal (in that he is the God of All).
> > > > > > > > > Life-generating (in that he is the Origin of all life).
> > > > > > > > > Personal (in that he may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.)
> > > > > > > > > Omnipotent (in that he is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
> > > > > > > > > Benevolent (in that god is Kind to His children.)
> > > > > > > > > Incomprehensible (in that he is infinite).
> > > > > > > > > In short, Joe is postulating:
> > > > > > > > > God is the unique, universal, all-powerful, benevolent Person
> > > > > > > > > who is the source of all life.
> > > > > > > > > Have I got this right Joe, or have I got it wrong?
>
> > > > > > > > So far, so good.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 5:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> First of all, I am amazed to see some possible progress in a thread
> > > > > > > > > > like this. Bravo to you both, philosopher and Alan, for bringing it
> > > > > > > > > > this far. My hope is restored!
>
> > > > > > > > > > I too was struck by the nearness of the miss in the opening post.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "the big Skydaddy who rules over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > Skydaddy is a common derogatory form of "Heavenly Father." The
> > > > > > > > > > thought is that "Heavenly Father" sounds too normal, since we often
> > > > > > > > > > pray to our heavenly Father, in fact, Our Lord began the Lord's Prayer
> > > > > > > > > > with "Our Father who art in Heaven." Had His words instead been
> > > > > > > > > > historically rendered into the common English as "Our Daddy who art in
> > > > > > > > > > the Sky," no doubt atheists would choose a different phrase to mock
> > > > > > > > > > that. Maybe philosopher would have said, "I understand him to be the
> > > > > > > > > > big Cloud Stud. . ." or something that sounds equally mocking.
>
> > > > > > > > > > But I understand that to be cursed with atheism is to suffer a social
> > > > > > > > > > handicap, so I'll let it slide. After all, there isn't anyone here
> > > > > > > > > > more socially backwards than yours truly --- ask any atheist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, analyzing phil's phrase for content, I find, mocking
> > > > > > > > > > phraseology aside, he has done a passable job.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "the" not "a" --- indicating this entity is Unique.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "big" not "small" --- indicating this unique entity is important
> > > > > > > > > > rather than inconsequential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Skydaddy" --- a compound we should break down:
> > > > > > > > > > "Sky" --- indicating that this entity is associated with the vastness
> > > > > > > > > > of the universe rather than just the local planet.
> > > > > > > > > > "daddy" --- indicating that this entity has the power to generate new
> > > > > > > > > > life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "who" --- indicating a Person rather than an impersonal force or
> > > > > > > > > > principle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "rules" --- indicating that this unique, important, universal, life-
> > > > > > > > > > generating Person has the power of control.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "over" --- a preposition joining said power of control with its object
>
> > > > > > > > > > "all" --- the object-set over which the entity has control --- in this
> > > > > > > > > > case, what is being asserted is omnipotence, "power over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > So we have a pretty good picture of God, from an atheist. Not bad.
> > > > > > > > > > "Big" seems redundant given omnipotence. But God, according to this
> > > > > > > > > > understanding is:
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1. unique --- there is only one God.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. universal --- He is the God of All.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. life-generating --- He is the Origin of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > 4. personal --- He may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.
> > > > > > > > > > 5. omnipotent --- He is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > There is some redundancy here, since to be able to exercise power
> > > > > > > > > > already does indicate a personal nature. We could say that a lake
> > > > > > > > > > behind a dam *has* a lot of power, but we would not say that the lake
> > > > > > > > > > *exercises* that power when its pressure is used to generate
> > > > > > > > > > electricity. Rather, we would attribute the use of the power of the
> > > > > > > > > > lake to those human beings who took advantage of its potential.
> > > > > > > > > > Still, it is possible --- as in the case of the lake --- to attribute
> > > > > > > > > > great power to an impersonal entity. We associate potential with
> > > > > > > > > > impersonal entities, but not potency. The attribute of omnipotence
> > > > > > > > > > means the ability to exercise infinite power, not merely to possess
> > > > > > > > > > it. God has infinite potency, not merely infinite potential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, there is obvious overlap, and it may be unclear that any
> > > > > > > > > > entity could possess any one of these attributes without
> > > > > > > > > > simultaneously possessing all the others.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I would add another attribute that is included in the definition but
> > > > > > > > > > that I passed over initially: "Father," or more accurately,
> > > > > > > > > > "Daddy," ("Daddy" more accurately renders the Hebrew "Abba") indicates
> > > > > > > > > > not only one who can generate life, but one who affectionately regards
> > > > > > > > > > the life he generates, and cares for it in a personal way. This might
> > > > > > > > > > also be derived from the combination of omnipotence, generativity, and
> > > > > > > > > > personality, but in case that derivation might be missed, it is O.K.
> > > > > > > > > > to state it separately:
>
> > > > > > > > > > 6. benevolent --- God is Kind to His children.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I think we have now arrived at a fairly accurate definition of my God,
> > > > > > > > > > or at least a fair description. He is the unique, universal, all-
> > > > > > > > > > powerful, benevolent Person who is the source of all life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 11:38 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > God is spirit? Yes. Incomprehensible? I confess don't know with any
> > > > > > > > > > > precision term incomprehensible, since it's not used in the modern
> > > > > > > > > > > creeds or
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:25 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 3, 6:05 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 9:49 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 1:50 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 3:16 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > So what you are saying is that you get "glimpses of God"
> > > > but you don't know who or what God is for sure -
>
> > > No, what I am saying is that I know for sure God is Love,
>
> > God is a Christian deity for which there is no evidence that it
> > exists. Love is an emotion that exists without God. Love is not
> > evidence God exists. Atheists feel love, Hindus feel love, chimps feel
> > love. Love and God are not the same thing.
>
> > > and Love is
> > > infinite,
>
> > Love is an emotion that ceases upon death.
>
> > > and I experience the infinity of Love as ever-increasing
> > > love in me.
>
> > I'm just a bit skeptical about this claim, judging by the seething
> > hatred you show towards those who don't recognize your overpowering
> > personal divinity. And your "love" isn't infinite; like everyone
> > else's it will cease upon death.
>
> Aw, Neil! I don't hate you.

Sure you do. Review your posts objectively, and then we'll talk.

> You are off your rocker!

You think there's an invisible incomprehensible infinite being who
loves us while he finds new ways to torture us and seems to be overly
concerned with our genitals, with no idea that he even exists, and you
think I'm off MY rocker? HAHHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA! Hey! Joe! I hear there's
a job opening for the Second Coming, you ought to apply!

If you had said "You are off your fucking rocker" would that have been
uncivilized? Or have you finally figured out the difference between an
ad hominem and an insult?

> > > To increase without bound is actually the definition of
> > > infinity.
>
> > But that's got nothing to do with your finite emotions.
>
> > > > all you
> > > > know is that this being/entity is all powerful and all
> > > > encompassing and has the ability to do what it will
> > > > with you. It also likes to be glorified.
>
> > > That is a human guess at what God "likes" according to a human
> > > perspective.
>
> > You know about as much about God as an atheist does. Less, even.
>
> > > I would say, rather, that God deserves to be glorified, and when a
> > > finite being encounters Him,
>
> > How could a finite being know when they have encountered God? God is
> > allegedly "incomprehensible" and "unfathomable."
>
> > > that finite being's natural reaction is
> > > to give Him glory, or else to hate Him if the being hates Love.
>
> > You really do have an active imagination, don't you?
>
> > > > Still, with all of this
> > > > it remains a mystery?
>
> > > Infinity cannot be rendered comprehensible to a finite being. God is
> > > the ultimate Mystery.
>
> > And yet there you were, just a few sentences ago, spouting off about
> > infinity. Further evidence you consider yourself to be an infinite
> > being. Hey, if you're talking to Jesus, can you ask him what stocks I
> > should invest in? Thanks...> > On Nov 30, 5:21 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Actually Joe, I was using it purely as a definition.
> > > > > > It seems to me that when people believe in God, God is different
> > > > > > for every person who believes in him/her. Some people believe
> > > > > > God is a person and has human form. Others say, no, God is a
> > > > > > spirit, and the third lot suggest that God is both.
> > > > > > Then there is the metaphysical side of things, where people don't
> > > > > > relate to God as anything like a human entity, but more like the
> > > > > > power of life, or the consciousness of the universe, the oneness
> > > > > > of all life, etc. My question was limited to asking what Christians
> > > > > > thought their God was, hence my asking for a definition from
> > > > > > them. There is no ulterior motive - just being respectful of
> > > > > > something I can't relate to, or believe in.
>
> > > > > I wold say that all the above descriptions are limited ideas of
> > > > > attributes of God. Limited ideas are the only ideas we can have, of
> > > > > an infinite Entity, so I prefer to acknowledge that for the most part
> > > > > God is Unknown. I believe He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus
> > > > > Christ, as previously as the Word to the prophets of old. I believe
> > > > > the Word remains with us, in the Holy Eucharist, so that there is no
> > > > > limit to how much Love will reveal both now and forever, and yet
> > > > > everything He has revealed at any time will still be nothing compared
> > > > > with the infinity that lies still hidden in Love. He will always be
> > > > > for the most part Unknown to us as the Infinite Mystery, but He has
> > > > > revealed enough for us to know Him as Love, and that is Enough, for
> > > > > Love is Infinite. And the infinity of Love is Incarnate, in the
> > > > > Eucharist.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> No, it is your move. Where do we go with this?
>
> > > > > > > Or did you actually only honestly want to know what God is?
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 27, 12:01 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > So far?
> > > > > > > > Do you want more?
> > > > > > > > If so, please add.
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 1:10 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 5:42 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Okay Joe
> > > > > > > > > > Let's try and get some sense here.
> > > > > > > > > > So, your definition of God is going to be:
> > > > > > > > > > God is:
> > > > > > > > > > Unique (in that there is only one God).
> > > > > > > > > > Universal (in that he is the God of All).
> > > > > > > > > > Life-generating (in that he is the Origin of all life).
> > > > > > > > > > Personal (in that he may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.)
> > > > > > > > > > Omnipotent (in that he is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
> > > > > > > > > > Benevolent (in that god is Kind to His children.)
> > > > > > > > > > Incomprehensible (in that he is infinite).
> > > > > > > > > > In short, Joe is postulating:
> > > > > > > > > > God is the unique, universal, all-powerful, benevolent Person
> > > > > > > > > > who is the source of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > Have I got this right Joe, or have I got it wrong?
>
> > > > > > > > > So far, so good.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 5:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> First of all, I am amazed to see some possible progress in a thread
> > > > > > > > > > > like this. Bravo to you both, philosopher and Alan, for bringing it
> > > > > > > > > > > this far. My hope is restored!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I too was struck by the nearness of the miss in the opening post.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "the big Skydaddy who rules over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Skydaddy is a common derogatory form of "Heavenly Father." The
> > > > > > > > > > > thought is that "Heavenly Father" sounds too normal, since we often
> > > > > > > > > > > pray to our heavenly Father, in fact, Our Lord began the Lord's Prayer
> > > > > > > > > > > with "Our Father who art in Heaven." Had His words instead been
> > > > > > > > > > > historically rendered into the common English as "Our Daddy who art in
> > > > > > > > > > > the Sky," no doubt atheists would choose a different phrase to mock
> > > > > > > > > > > that. Maybe philosopher would have said, "I understand him to be the
> > > > > > > > > > > big Cloud Stud. . ." or something that sounds equally mocking.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > But I understand that to be cursed with atheism is to suffer a social
> > > > > > > > > > > handicap, so I'll let it slide. After all, there isn't anyone here
> > > > > > > > > > > more socially backwards than yours truly --- ask any atheist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, analyzing phil's phrase for content, I find, mocking
> > > > > > > > > > > phraseology aside, he has done a passable job.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "the" not "a" --- indicating this entity is Unique.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "big" not "small" --- indicating this unique entity is important
> > > > > > > > > > > rather than inconsequential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "Skydaddy" --- a compound we should break down:
> > > > > > > > > > > "Sky" --- indicating that this entity is associated with the vastness
> > > > > > > > > > > of the universe rather than just the local planet.
> > > > > > > > > > > "daddy" --- indicating that this entity has the power to generate new
> > > > > > > > > > > life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "who" --- indicating a Person rather than an impersonal force or
> > > > > > > > > > > principle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "rules" --- indicating that this unique, important, universal, life-
> > > > > > > > > > > generating Person has the power of control.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "over" --- a preposition joining said power of control with its object
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "all" --- the object-set over which the entity has control --- in this
> > > > > > > > > > > case, what is being asserted is omnipotence, "power over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So we have a pretty good picture of God, from an atheist. Not bad.
> > > > > > > > > > > "Big" seems redundant given omnipotence. But God, according to this
> > > > > > > > > > > understanding is:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. unique --- there is only one God.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. universal --- He is the God of All.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. life-generating --- He is the Origin of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. personal --- He may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. omnipotent --- He is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > There is some redundancy here, since to be able to exercise power
> > > > > > > > > > > already does indicate a personal nature. We could say that a lake
> > > > > > > > > > > behind a dam *has* a lot of power, but we would not say that the lake
> > > > > > > > > > > *exercises* that power when its pressure is used to generate
> > > > > > > > > > > electricity. Rather, we would attribute the use of the power of the
> > > > > > > > > > > lake to those human beings who took advantage of its potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > Still, it is possible --- as in the case of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: guidelines.org: You can only live so long
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/716971416ddc1540?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:06 pm
From: Dev

Maybe they're just insane and a danger to your family?

Whoops, threw that one out there...

On Dec 3, 9:00 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that always baffled me.
>
> But that's because I expect a hairline's worth of consistency. I guess
> it's my fault for expecting that.
>
> On Dec 2, 9:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How can theists deny that their faith is based largely on the fear of
> > death when they admit it so openly?
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:12 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Brock wrote:
> > > > Facing death, however, is neither scary nor foreboding when you have
> > > > the concrete assurance that death opens the door to eternal life.
> > > > That s the difference that Jesus Christ made in our world."
>
> > > Yeah, we all know we're going to croak someday. However, the rational
> > > do not believe in eternal life. I live as full a life as I can and
> > > leave the Jesus fairy tales in the "myths" file.
>
> > > Medusa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:28 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 11:05, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There we go. It took all of two posts for him to get to one of his repeats.

chx
Yep, I be on his ass non stop yuk yuk yuk

HELP!
I can't stop impersonating him... I am becoming him!
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:29 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 17:55, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>
> You always make me laugh when you reply to Brock.

Glad you appreciate... Some meanies are claiming I am spamming!
The nerve!
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Christians tolerate each other as well as Jews can?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/1f898d2ae6259b6c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:18 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 5:51 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If only Paul's were teaching something akin to a replica to Jesus'
> teachings. His, however, is not. Paul was a twisted mind admirer. When
> he taught Christianity, his brand of Christianity is without a command
> of Christ and is fooled.

It was not just Paul who preached a new message claiming that it was
the correct interpretation of an old message. Jesus did this too. Are
you going to call Jesus twisted too?

That seems like the way that people were able to find, to market a new
message. If Jesus/Paul had come out and said that his message was a
new message/covenant that would replace the old one, he wouldn't have
got any followers.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faux Pas Tolerance: Many Christians Are Hypocrites and Violate Code Of
Conduct
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/10b5c64fbe191c3d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:25 pm
From: Joe

Wow O.K., have a nice day!

On Dec 3, 5:57 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:49 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 3, 4:04 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 1:03 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 12:15 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Labeling Atheists
> > > > > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > > > > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > > > > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > > > > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > > > > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > > > > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > > > > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > > > > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > > > > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > > > > either side of the argument of truth.
> > > > > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > > > > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > > > > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > > > > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > > > > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > > > > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > > > > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > > > > addressed.
> > > > > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > > > > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > > > > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > > > > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > > > > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > > > > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > > > > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > > > > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > > > > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > > > > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > > > > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > > > > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > > > > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > > > > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > > > > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > > > > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > > > > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > > > > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > > > > way."
> > > > > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > > > > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > > > > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > > > > torture people."
>
> > > > That is something Christians here hear all the time from atheists
> > > > here. It is far more common than the reverse. So maybe the point of
> > > > your post should be that many atheists are hypocrites.
>
> > > No because many Christians are hypocrites.
> > > VERY clear in title of posting
>
> > And contradicted by the preponderance of atheistic postings more or
> > less exactly like that which you cite just above.
>
> Not contradicted by the preponderance of atheistic postings more or
> less exactly like that which you cite just above.
> Many Christians are hypocrites
> VERY clear in title of posting
>
> Also your Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:
>
> "Labeling Atheists
> Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> either side of the argument of truth.
> Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> addressed.
> So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> Stating that Atheism is a religion
> Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> way."
> To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> Stating unsupportable facts
> No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> Never admitting when you are wrong
> Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm> > > > The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > > > > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > > > > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > > > > Stating unsupportable facts
> > > > > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > > > > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > > > > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > > > > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > > > > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > > > > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > > > > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > > > > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > > > > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > > > > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > > > > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > > > > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > > > > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > > > > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > > > > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > > > > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > > > > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > > > > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > > > > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> > > > >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we have proof of Herod the Great?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/b5232c75cf9605f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:29 pm
From: Medusa

Ruthie wrote:

> Why do we have books that were published around the time of Jesus but
> have no original bible that was published? We have proof of all these
> people, who were around when Jesus was performing miracles but we have
> no one writing about these events. I would think if it was dark for 40
> days, like the bible said,there would be someone documenting this
> amazing event.

You're beginning to catch on. There is no record of these events
outside the Bible. Maybe the events never happened/

> Whenever you look for facts,you come up with no answer.
>
> In 325 A D Constatine ordered a meeting at the council of Niceae ,so
> all these different religions would decide what was christian
> doctrine. Why would these religions have to come together and decide
> on doctrine that was already supose to be the truth from the bible.
>
> This shows me they came together and chaged the bible and made it fit
> their agenda.

That's exactly what I think. The Bible was rewritten to suit those
who were putting it together.

Whole books were deleted, too, such as the Gospel of Mary. Mary
Magdalene, not the Virgin Mary.

Medusa

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christians get the message.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/11511ccd36fe0d4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:30 pm
From: Dev

I don't blame you. When John Travolta did that thing and Tom Cruise
did that thing, I almost stopped burning my witch.

On Dec 3, 11:03 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Damn it, I keep falling for these things. Last time it was Scientology.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > It was a trap, Turner. I was just proving how intolerant and mean you
> > are. Maybe now you should convert to Christianity and start defending
> > how everyone who doesn't believe in your Sky Pixie deserves to burn
> > forever while simultaneously nailing yourself to a cross because
> > someone said something mean to you on the Internets.
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:50 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > NOTE TO ALLAN: MY AGREEMENT WITH DEV DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE SUGGESTION OF
> > > TOXIC DARTS. WHEN I SAY, YES, DEV, YOU'RE RIGHT, I AM NOT AGREEING TO GO
> > > KIDNAP YOU AND MAKE YOU SLEEP WITH THE FISHES. YOU CAN PUT AWAY YOUR
> > SHOTGUN
> > > AND TINFOIL HAT.
>
> > > Yes, Dev, you're right.
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, Allan is mentally ill. The logical incoherence follows, and the
> > > > moral incoherence is why we should fire toxic darts into his throat so
> > > > he wakes up in a cage in the ocean somewhere.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 7:31 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, but aside from the moral incoherence of the argument, it's also
> > > > > logically incoherent. His conclusion simply does not follow from his
> > > > > premises.
>
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Amen, Turner. I still don't get how a serial killer on trial can
> > say
> > > > > > "other people kill, not just me, therefore I'm innocent" and be
> > > > > > proclaimed a psychopath, but this psychopathic argument rests so
> > well
> > > > > > with theists.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 6:43 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Treebeard <
> > > > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 1:36 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Treebeard <
> > > > > > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <
> > trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <
> > > > > > > > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there
> > can be
> > > > a
> > > > > > non-
> > > > > > > > > > > > extremist religion?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I think there are extremists in all religions.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think that there is any movement or philosophy of
> > any
> > > > > > > > > > importance that does not have extremists?
>
> > > > > > > > > We are not talking about other movements or philosophies.
>
> > > > > > > > My point is that if all movements or philosophies may have
> > > > extremists,
> > > > > > > > you didn't answer my question, which was if there can be a non-
> > > > > > > > extremist religion. Remember, your reply was that all
> > religions
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > extremists, and I was merely trying to ascertain if you thought
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > made the religion itself extremist or not.
>
> > > > > > > > > We debate religion on this site and frankly it's a
> > nonsensical
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > childish
> > > > > > > > > argument to say "well everyone else does it."
>
> > > > > > > > It is a perfect argument if you want to assert that extremism
> > is a
> > > > > > > > quality of religion itself, which is what I objected to. If
> > that
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > not your intent, then we don't have much to talk about.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd
> > > > accept
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > aren't extremists?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with
> > > > > > Religious
> > > > > > > > > > Extremism
> > > > > > > > > > > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop
> > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Can you give a specific action that we could take to show
> > you
> > > > that
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > are not trying to justify it?
>
> > > > > > > > > You could stop giving silly arguments like "everyone else
> > does
> > > > it" to
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > it seem justifiable.
>
> > > > > > > > Again, I am merely claiming that religions are not inherently
> > > > > > > > extremist, and proving that by demonstrating other causes that
> > are
> > > > non-
> > > > > > > > religious but are or contain extremists.
>
> > > > > > > That doesn't show what you want to show. You've got your logic
> > all
> > > > > > cockeyed.
> > > > > > > What you'd need to show in order to show that religions are not
> > > > > > inherently
> > > > > > > extremist is to demonstrate religious causes that are not
> > extremist,
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > than extremist causes that are not religious. The exact term for
> > the
> > > > the
> > > > > > > logical induction escapes me, but you can't disprove "x is a
> > > > religion" ->
> > > > > > "x
> > > > > > > is extremist" by showing "there exists a y such that y is
> > extremist".
>
> > > > > > > > I replied to a comment you
> > > > > > > > made that, to me, stated precisely that. If that is not what
> > you
> > > > > > > > meant, feel free to inform me of that.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we
> > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.
>
> > > > > > > > > I've never once asked anyone to "give up their religion" on
> > this
> > > > > > site.
>
> > > > > > > > I never stated that you had; I am simply eliminating that as an
> > > > option
> > > > > > > > because based on what I listed I cannot really see any other
> > > > > > > > alternative thing that is not already being done, but perhaps
> > there
> > > > > > > > will be something in your list below.
>
> > > > > > > > > > And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to
> > change
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > religion from inside", because many do.
>
> > > > > > > > > > And you can't say "Be an activist" because most people
> > aren't.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > myself am not an activist about anything; you cannot demand
> > > > that I
> > > > > > > > > > change my personality over this.
>
> > > > > > > > > > So, other than that, what actions are you expecting us to
> > take?
>
> > > > > > > > > You should acknowledge the reality of the consequences of
> > your
> > > > > > beliefs on
> > > > > > > > > others and the rest of the world and stop making excuses for
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > crimes
> > > > > > > > > religion has committed in the past.
>
> > > > > > > > I merely claim that religion is no worse than anything else.
> > > > That's a
> > > > > > > > logical position that you can oppose if you'd like. I do
> > indeed
> > > > > > > > acknowledge that people can do bad things in the name of
> > religion,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > quite reasonably refuse to accept the claim that those things
> > would
> > > > > > > > not occur without religion.
>
> > > > > > > > > You should object to those who commit crimes in your god's
> > name.
>
> > > > > > > > I do.
>
> > > > > > > > > You should isolate the extremists and not go along with or
> > accept
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > do in your gods name.
>
> > > > > > > > I do.
>
> > > > > > > > > And you should support the fight to maintain a secular
> > society.
>
> > > > > > > > This depends on what you mean by "secular". If it includes the
> > > > > > > > elimination of religion or an insistence that even moderate
> > > > religious
> > > > > > > > people cannot act on their religious beliefs, that is,
> > obviously, a
> > > > > > > > step far too far.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dinosaurs & the Bible
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/ea1b75046a21902d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:33 pm
From: Max

Ah brother Hayes......such a reasonable and compliant child of christ.
For pennace, you must spank Sister Capitaofficium with the holy 'Rod
of God' (and could you get some photos for me & Father Peter Phile,
glossy 8 x 4's preferably) and then offer your eternal sorrow for such
ungodly remarks.

Get God in your Head

More God & more Head

On Dec 4, 1:02 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right. My behavior was unbecoming of a Servant of Christ. What shall
> I do to make amends to Our Lord and Savior?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>
> > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>
> > More God & more Head
>
> > In thy mercy
>
> > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > that
> > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I
> > would
> > > probably think he was.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > again.
>
> > > > Clear....Good!
>
> > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > need.
>
> > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:40 pm
From: Max

Brother Harry......nay you damnable unbelieving non believer. The
great council of the 'Order of brotherly love' have told us about you
and we know you are an unregistered defiler. Nay, we have other
methods for your conversion.

You are commanded to attend the council 'round house' to not be
administered to by our lovely Sister Capitiofficium (she's busy at
present anyway.......deeper Sis, deeper!!!!) but to find your true God
in the spirit of our brotherly love. You are to bring with you, the
Holy KY cream, 3 poles, oil, candles (nice scented ones) and 7
gerbils.

I look forward to your conversion, as should you!!

Get God in your Head

More God & more Head

On Dec 4, 3:07 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:26 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > again.
>
> > Clear....Good!
>
> > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > need.
>
> > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
>
> If it is all the same with you, I will take the 'more head' option.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:07 pm
From: Multiverse

Yes for Christ's sake! Get her out of here already! She's been so god
dammed clingy and all. She as been praying all frickin day. Didn'T
think Id ever have to say it but enough already. You'd think she'd
been locked in a convent or sumpin!

On Dec 3, 9:33 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Ah brother Hayes......such a reasonable and compliant child of christ.
> For pennace, you must spank Sister Capitaofficium with the holy 'Rod
> of God' (and could you get some photos for me & Father Peter Phile,
> glossy 8 x 4's preferably) and then offer your eternal sorrow for such
> ungodly remarks.
>
> Get God in your Head
>
> More God & more Head
>
> On Dec 4, 1:02 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're right. My behavior was unbecoming of a Servant of Christ. What shall
> > I do to make amends to Our Lord and Savior?
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>
> > > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>
> > > More God & more Head
>
> > > In thy mercy
>
> > > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > > that
> > > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I
> > > would
> > > > probably think he was.
>
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > > again.
>
> > > > > Clear....Good!
>
> > > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > > need.
>
> > > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> > > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "what if rupture occurs"
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0b67077a7af4af57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:39 pm
From: Dev

*unzips Max's pants*

Sorry, man, I'm an asshole. Third time's a charm.

On Dec 3, 9:51 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's two times you made me laugh out loud this morning. Knock it
> off!
>
> On Dec 2, 7:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Priests ask me this sometimes, and I say they're on their own at this
> > point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Moderation in AvC
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/673043bbcc4e3339?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:05 pm
From: trog69

Listen dumbass, either file a complaint with Google, or shut the fuck
up.

On Dec 3, 3:08 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see that
> > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed according
> > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up now,
> > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense of
> > > > the term.
>
> > > chx
> > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > ***
> > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > chx
> > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't even
> > > > be aware of it.
>
> > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > and it would be serious.
> > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > that it was from me.
>
> > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > _________________________________
> > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > ***
>
> > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should be
> > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > This must be treason.
> > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > chx
> > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > and now selling
> > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > chx
> > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report us.
>
> chx
> why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
>
>
> > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > ***
> > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
>
> > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > them which is what you did in this post.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004...
>
> > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > illegal.
>
> > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > understand.
> > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > ***
>
> > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:17 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 20:18, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> chx
> i am a good christin
> mocking me is illegal
> but i don't report illegal activity yuk yuk yuk

checkers, enough with the whining already!
At least you have the sense not to report this alleged illegal
activity, you idiot.
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:30 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.believer@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 3 déc, 20:18, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > chx
> > i am a good christin
> > mocking me is illegal
> > but i don't report illegal activity yuk yuk yuk
>
> checkers, enough with the whining already!
> At least you have the sense not to report this alleged illegal
> activity, you idiot.

chx
anser42 is a dumm
he is out to kill me. the atheists are in a conspreerasee aginst me
yuk yuk yuk [chuckle]

>
> _____________________________________
> Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> understand.
> -- Frederick the Great
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do Christians avoid worshipping the wrong god?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d788c3a77b4c371?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:10 pm
From: Multiverse

>Should we worship a
> piece of wood?

Sister Capitoff sure does!

On Dec 3, 5:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So essentially, Asherahs are pieces of wood. Should we worship a
> piece of wood? Even if someone claims to receive prophecy from their
> piece of wood?
>
> On Dec 3, 5:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> > > > The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
> > > > place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?
>
> > > I understand the definition of air. I understand the definition of
> > > God. Kindly define for me this word Asherah.
>
> > Glean a definition from this:
>
> > Though all three ancient Levantine great goddesses appear in the
> > Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, Asherah occurs most often:
> > forty times in nine books. The biblical texts are hostile witnesses,
> > for they either vilify the goddess or, more often, obliterate her
> > grammatically, for instance, by referring to her in the masculine
> > plural as "the asherahs." Until the Ugaritic tablets were deciphered
> > beginning in the 1930s, most scholars did not even speculate that "the
> > asherahs" might be obscuring a goddess(Hadley 2000:4). They
> > interpreted "the asherahs" as either wooden poles, cult objects from
> > Baal worship, or groves of trees. Only a brave few claimed that "the
> > asherahs" referred to a goddess citing such passages as I Kings 18, in
> > which "prophets of Asherah"(1) served Queen Jezebel(Binger 1997:111;
> > Yamashita 1963:126). The first detailed study of Asherah in the Hebrew
> > Bible after the Ugaritic discoveries concluded that "the asherah"
> > represented both a wooden cult object and a goddess (Reed 1949:37,
> > 53), a position some scholars still hold today.
>
> > Unquestionably, "the asherahs" were usually wooden; they stood
> > upright, often beside altars, along with stone pillars. However, in at
> > least eight instances, they are described as carved(Pettey 1990:45).
> > Thus, far from being merely wooden "cult poles," they were probably
> > quite large carved images. As was the case with cult statues in other
> > areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, "the asherahs" almost certainly
> > would have been "animated" ritually (Walker and Dick 1999:57). Thus
> > they did not just represent the goddess, but actually were worshipped
> > as Asherah herself. Further, according to the Bible, a statue of
> > Asherah stood in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem for about two-
> > thirds of its existence (Patai 1990:50). Asherah "must, then, have
> > been a legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh" (Olyan 1988:13).
>
> > The Hebrew Scriptures regularly pair Asherah's name, especially "the
> > asherahs," with Baal's, so that some scholars have wondered whether
> > Asherah had ousted Astarte as Baal's consort. In 1963 Yamashita noted
> > that most of the references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, including
> > those pairing Asherah with Baal, were associated with only one source
> > (1963:123-137). Later, Olyan argued very convincingly that the
> > biblical attacks on Asherah were "restricted to the Deuteronomistic
> > History"(2) and to texts exhibiting Deuteronomistic influence. For
> > instance, the numerous pairings of Baal with Asherah's "cult symbol,"
> > called "the asherah," are part of a reformist, monotheistic "anti-
> > asherah polemic" aimed at discrediting "the asherah" by associating it
> > with Baal and Astarte (Olyan 1988: 1, 3, 13-14). This polemic was
> > necessary because Asherah "had some role in the cult of Yahweh … not
> > only in popular Yahwism, but in the official cult as well" (Olyan
> > 1988:74).
>
> > In addition to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, there is also
> > considerable archaeological evidence that may throw light on the role
> > of Asherah in the religion of the early Israelites. First, a
> > considerable number of small, clay, female statuettes, which
> > archaeologists usually call "pillar figurines," have been unearthed
> > all over Israel. Dating to the eighth and early seventh centuries,
> > that is, to the height of the Israelite monarchy, they occur in almost
> > every excavation of the period (Kletter 1996: 4, 40-41).(3) So many
> > pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that
> > they are often regarded as "a characteristic expression of Judahite
> > piety" (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:327; Kletter 1996:45).
>
> > Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> > Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> > god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> > Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> > from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> > translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> > drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> > Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> > Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> > Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> > god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> > Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> > from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> > translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> > drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> > Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> >http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:11 pm
From: LL

On Dec 2, 7:10 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:31 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > LL: Please explain how this objectiveness works.
>
> Consider:
>
> "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true
> everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance,
> it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'.
> A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times,
> places or people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be
> true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone."

LL: I still don't know how this translates to objectiveness when it
comes to the truth of the bible.

The bible is not considered true everywhere. In fact, less than 30%
of the world's population considers themselves Christians--and of
those only a percentage of that would say the bible is completely
true. Islam is running a close second to Christianity as a percentage
of the world's population. In terms of numbers of people there are
probably more people in the world who think the Koran is true than the
bible.

*******************************************************************************************************

******************************************************
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivity_and...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dan R. Smedra: The redefining of tolerance
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/933a1bfb5dac7034?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:10 pm
From: trog69

Fuck you and Dan R. Smegma.

On Dec 3, 1:41 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> from:
>
> http://withchrist.org/tolerance.htm
>
> The author has many good points to note about how "tolerance", a value
> defined in a relativistic context, can be used to impose relativistic
> values in an absolute fashion:
>
> "Close-minded. Intolerant. Arrogant. All these words are frequently
> used to disparage and ridicule those who believe that absolutes exist
> and can be known; that there are moral rights and wrongs, and that
> some viewpoints are correct while others are wrong."
>
> and:
>
> "A growing number of people reject the idea of the absolute reality
> exists in favor of the philosophy of postmodern relativism. Today's
> relativism dogmatically asserts that nothing can be known with
> certainty, except the maxim of relativism. Yes, this position is
> self-contradictory. This dogmatism is similar to the atheist's
> emphatic assertion that God does not exist. They assert a universal
> axiom they cannot prove. According to relativism, positive knowledge
> is an impossibility; no viewpoint can legitimately claim to be
> superior, except of course relativism."
>
> The author tellingly notes:
>
> ""Relativism about truth does not lead to tolerance. Rather, it leads
> to the conclusion that social conflicts cannot be resolved by reason
> or even compromise, because there is no common reason that can unite
> groups that differ on fundamental questions." Thus, relativism leads
> to power struggles and in the end...violence."
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Schism!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8abd798698d5604e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:12 pm
From: trog69

Yeah, I had a condo in Fox Lake, and worked at the Zion Nuke for a
couple of years; It's a very uptight corner of Illinois.

On Dec 3, 12:40 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Conservatives form rival to Episcopal Church
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28033549
>
> > WHEATON, Ill. - Theological conservatives upset by the liberal views
> > of the Episcopal Church are forming a rival denomination.
>
> > The new Anglican Church in North America will include four Episcopal
> > dioceses that recently split from the U.S. church, along with
> > breakaway Anglican parishes from Canada.
>
> > The announcement Wednesday in Wheaton, Illinois, comes after decades
> > of debate over what Episcopalians should believe about issues ranging
> > from salvation to sexuality.
>
> > * end of item *
>
> > Oh goodie. Maybe North Americans can finally have its own "Troubles."
>
> Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> and yet be so backwards.
>
> I just don't get it.
>
> Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> sense I should thank them. :)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:33 pm
From: rappoccio

On Dec 3, 4:21 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:55 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 2:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Conservatives form rival to Episcopal Church
>
> > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28033549
>
> > > > > WHEATON, Ill. - Theological conservatives upset by the liberal views
> > > > > of the Episcopal Church are forming a rival denomination.
>
> > > > > The new Anglican Church in North America will include four Episcopal
> > > > > dioceses that recently split from the U.S. church, along with
> > > > > breakaway Anglican parishes from Canada.
>
> > > > > The announcement Wednesday in Wheaton, Illinois, comes after decades
> > > > > of debate over what Episcopalians should believe about issues ranging
> > > > > from salvation to sexuality.
>
> > > > > * end of item *
>
> > > > > Oh goodie. Maybe North Americans can finally have its own "Troubles."
>
> > > > Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> > > > and yet be so backwards.
>
> > > > I just don't get it.
>
> > > > Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> > > > Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> > > > sense I should thank them. :)-
>
> > > ????
>
> > > That's a provocative statement...what sort of things did they do that
> > > turned you off?
>
> > Oh, where should I start?
>
> > - All but commanding their parishioners to vote Republican.
> > - Never said a word criticizing George Bush while he blatantly lied to
> > get the nation to go to war, but yet regularly railed against John
> > Kerry (for instance) in every single thing he ever did.
> > - Made fun of scientists on a regular basis, saying that they aren't
> > moral or ethical.
> > - Pretended there was a moral decline in America, of course
> > perpetrated by the atheists.
>
> > I'm not sure I should stop here, but any one of these is disgusting
> > enough.
>
> Weird that Catholics would have railed against John Kerry, no?

They didn't consider him a "true Catholic" since he was pro-choice.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:33 pm
From: rappoccio

On Dec 3, 5:14 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:55 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> > > > and yet be so backwards.
>
> > > > Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> > > > Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> > > > sense I should thank them. :)-
>
> > > That's a provocative statement...what sort of things did they do that
> > > turned you off?
>
> > - Made fun of scientists on a regular basis, saying that they aren't
> > moral or ethical.
>
> Did they have no parishioners who were scientists?

Yes, I was among them.

>
> > - Pretended there was a moral decline in America, of course
> > perpetrated by the atheists.
>
> If moral values that they hold dear are successfully opposed, they
> would naturally think that who ever opposes them are perpetrating
> moral decline. Why do you think they pretend to think so?

Because I don't think there is a moral decline in America.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity"
group.

To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 12 topics - digest

Atheism vs Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A little help from the theist side for Brock, Checkers etc in debating
with atheists
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8bae88aebb09d12f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:14 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 18:06, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Its why I patiently and consistently reply to a large majority of
> follow ups, understanding that to reject implied or explicit premises
> are rarely well received by atheists, perhaps likely because they are
> not used to framing their positions outside such premises, or without
> additional pejoratives, ad hominem and invective.

> I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of
> internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken

Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible
is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with
me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are
wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster
Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar
crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the
measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla

Yes Brock, we know, we have heard it all before.
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what if rapture occurs
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0b67077a7af4af57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:19 pm
From: furlan

Hi,

On Dec 2, 7:43 pm, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.

In life understanding is the booby prize. :-P

just saying...

(for extra points what is the reference for this quote?)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mark Shea: Padding the Case for the New Atheism
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7086bf6a6cf6d81e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:21 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

Safer than allowing them near pedophiles like MEG.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, MEG <ekrubmeg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "greater tolerance for sexual diversity." or a love for playing
> 'literally' with someone else's shit. Yes, raise your children is a
> cess pool, just so they get the hang of it.
>
> On Dec 3, 9:34 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > from:
> >
> > http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html
> >
> > Against an untenable claim of "neutrality" of beliefs, the article
> > notes:
> >
> > "For the New Atheist is full of moral prescriptions and proscriptions:
> > We should be teaching children about Darwin. We should not be teaching
> > children religion. We should have greater tolerance for sexual
> > diversity. We should not be subjecting infants to circumcision. We
> > ought to be doing X, we ought not to be doing Y, etc."
> >
> > Against materialist claims he notes:
> >
> > "The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe -- any moral
> > universe at all -- of Should from a purely materialistic universe of
> > Is turns out to be impossible. The perfectly just outrage of a
> > Hitchens at some crime by a theist turns out -- if you grant the New
> > Atheists' materialism -- to be just one more biochemical reaction. And
> > privileging a biochemical reaction merely because it is a lot more
> > complex than, say, combustion is as crude a mystification as bowing
> > down to a rock because it's really really big."
> >
> > and in identifying the specific nature of blind faith frequently
> > employed in atheism:
> >
> > "What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
> > convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
> > faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
> > artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
> > ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
> >
> > A very thoughtful piece that clearly illustrates many inadequacies
> > associated with the new atheism.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Brock
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Precedence For Non-Violence in the Face of Irrational
Injustice
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e541b28803148ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:33 pm
From: Max

Thank you. (Again, I was unware that Dev had been 'told' to pull his
head in as well.)

Regards

Max

On Dec 4, 7:58 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> > after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> > thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> > course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> > your thoughts.
>
> > Thanks Trance,
>
> > But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> > confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
>
> > "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> > for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> > knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> > retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
>
> > No 'matey' myopia now :)
>
> I guess I'm just saying that there's a time to make an issue out of things
> and time to just not worry about them.
>
> I said something along those lines to Dev too.
>
> You're both very bright guys and I like you both.
>
> So, I just hate to see this kind of thing happening.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > >to back his premise that
>
> > > > Max,
> > > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> > > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> > > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
>
> > > Advice I agree with, Max.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look
> > for
> > > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have
> > been
> > > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy
> > had
> > > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > > to back his premise that
>
> > > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > > was all a set up.
>
> > > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > > greys, so it seems.
>
> > > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable
> > solution
> > > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > > > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us,
> > colonialism
> > > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > > > divided us.
>
> > > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > > > strive for understanding.
>
> > > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean
> > who
> > > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every
> > one
> > > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > > > violence anyway.
>
> > > > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > > > what's right."
>
> > > > > Max
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm
> > getting
> > > > Dev
> > > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit
> > in'
> > > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted
> > to
> > > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community
> > acceptance
> > > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have
> > had
> > > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle'
> > still
> > > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of
> > non
> > > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the
> > right
> > > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non
> > violent
> > > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community
> > in
> > > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and
> > non
> > > > > > > violence eh!
>
> > > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > > > know is
> > > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > > > Max
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article
> > (actually,
> > > > book,
> > > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for
> > easy
> > > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential
> > "examples"
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > > > link,
> > > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was
> > actually a
> > > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth,
> > why
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent
> > examples?
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > > > no--
> > > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do
> > with
> > > > human
> > > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > > > beings are
> > > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence
> > in
> > > > order
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the
> > proportion
> > > > is of
> > > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > > proportion
> > > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > > > history?
> > > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at
> > violence
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on
> > the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning
> > a
> > > > War of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:35 pm
From: Max

When you're ready!

Regards

Max

On Dec 4, 8:29 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> sorry max my focus has been poor at best. Trying to juggle to many
> threads yesterday and all. I'll get to it after I get the kids to
> bed.
>
> On Dec 3, 4:54 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> > after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> > thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> > course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> > your thoughts.
>
> > Thanks Trance,
>
> > But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> > confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
>
> > "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> > for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> > knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> > retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
>
> > No 'matey' myopia now :)
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > >to back his premise that
>
> > > > Max,
> > > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> > > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> > > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
>
> > > Advice I agree with, Max.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > > to back his premise that
>
> > > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > > was all a set up.
>
> > > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > > greys, so it seems.
>
> > > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > > > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > > > divided us.
>
> > > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > > > strive for understanding.
>
> > > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > > > violence anyway.
>
> > > > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > > > what's right."
>
> > > > > Max
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting
> > > > Dev
> > > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > > > > violence eh!
>
> > > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > > > know is
> > > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > > > Max
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > > > book,
> > > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > > > link,
> > > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples?
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > > > no--
> > > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > > > human
> > > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > > > beings are
> > > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> > > > order
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion
> > > > is of
> > > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > > proportion
> > > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > > > history?
> > > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a
> > > > War of
> > > > > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:53 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> Thank you. (Again, I was unware that Dev had been 'told' to pull his
> head in as well.)

*Asked*. I know better than to *tell* anyone on this group to do anything!
Lol.

>
>
> Regards
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 4, 7:58 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> > > after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> > > thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> > > course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> > > your thoughts.
> >
> > > Thanks Trance,
> >
> > > But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> > > confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
> >
> > > "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> > > for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> > > knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> > > retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
> >
> > > No 'matey' myopia now :)
> >
> > I guess I'm just saying that there's a time to make an issue out of
> things
> > and time to just not worry about them.
> >
> > I said something along those lines to Dev too.
> >
> > You're both very bright guys and I like you both.
> >
> > So, I just hate to see this kind of thing happening.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Max
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source
> material
> > > > > >to back his premise that
> >
> > > > > Max,
> > > > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up
> of
> > > > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not
> do
> > > > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding
> and
> > > > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
> >
> > > > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write
> another
> > > > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you
> drop
> > > > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
> >
> > > > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
> >
> > > > Advice I agree with, Max.
> >
> > > > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to
> look
> > > for
> > > > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have
> > > been
> > > > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start.
> Devy
> > > had
> > > > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad
> statement
> > > > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in
> the
> > > > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
> >
> > > > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear
> ol'
> > > > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source
> material
> > > > > > to back his premise that
> >
> > > > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann
> makes a
> > > > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source
> material."
> >
> > > > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like
> this
> > > > > > was all a set up.
> >
> > > > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean
> reference
> > > > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > > > greys, so it seems.
> >
> > > > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable
> > > solution
> > > > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more
> likely
> > > > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
> >
> > > > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are
> really
> > > > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia.
> It's
> > > > > > a flawed argument that one.
> >
> > > > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's
> place. I
> > > > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
> >
> > > > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non
> violent
> > > > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and
> a
> > > > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us,
> > > colonialism
> > > > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance
> has
> > > > > > divided us.
> >
> > > > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize
> and
> > > > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should
> collectively
> > > > > > strive for understanding.
> >
> > > > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I
> mean
> > > who
> > > > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures
> every
> > > one
> > > > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually
> prefer
> > > > > > violence anyway.
> >
> > > > > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > > > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure
> out
> > > > > > what's right."
> >
> > > > > > Max
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Dear Lady,
> >
> > > > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face
> of
> > > > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm
> > > getting
> > > > > Dev
> > > > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent
> 'sit
> > > in'
> > > > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless.
> I
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he
> wanted
> > > to
> > > > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> >
> > > > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community
> > > acceptance
> > > > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western
> democracies
> > > > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must
> have
> > > had
> > > > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The
> 'struggle'
> > > still
> > > > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> >
> > > > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a
> program of
> > > non
> > > > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had
> the
> > > right
> > > > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
> >
> > > > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non
> > > violent
> > > > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black
> community
> > > in
> > > > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades
> later.......an
> > > > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy
> and
> > > non
> > > > > > > > violence eh!
> >
> > > > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one
> that we
> > > > > know is
> > > > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
> >
> > > > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
> >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> >
> > > > > > > > Max
> >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <
> thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article
> > > (actually,
> > > > > book,
> > > > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online
> for
> > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential
> > > "examples"
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for
> the
> > > > > link,
> > > > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was
> > > actually a
> > > > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern
> myth,
> > > why
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent
> > > examples?
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans?
> Well,
> > > > > no--
> > > > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do
> > > with
> > > > > human
> > > > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that
> human
> > > > > beings are
> > > > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to
> violence
> > > in
> > > > > order
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the
> > > proportion
> > > > > is of
> > > > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > > > proportion
> > > > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really
> drives
> > > > > history?
> > > > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at
> > > violence
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers
> winning
> > > a
> > > > > War of
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

--
Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
Andromeda

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:00 pm
From: Dev

So I should have titled the thread "Good, Substantial Historical
Precedence for Pacifism"? Sorry, I sincerely did think it was implied
that I wanted _good_ precedence.

On Dec 3, 6:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then I would say I misunderstood the original question. I thought you
> were just looking for examples period, not necessarily examples that
> conclusively, without any doubt what-so-ever worked in an undeniable
> manner.
>
> On Dec 2, 10:13 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Did you read the article I linked to in response to Drafterman, that
> > kind of motivated this thread?
>
> >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > I'm pretty much agreeing with what he said: that there doesn't seem to
> > be an historical precedent for nonviolence working mainly on its own
> > merits in a serious conflict, and the few predictable examples
> > anticipated from posters on this thread are at best
> > oversimplifications.
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:03 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > People like to undermine the role of violence in the
>
> > > > success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> > > > humanity.
>
> > > Good point. Take the case of journalistic censorship on the
> > > battlefield. Not showing the lifeless bodies of the 18 year old
> > > American boy on the battlefield helps. At last count there have been
> > > more than 4800 US service-members killed in Iraq / Afghanistan. How
> > > many dead American bodies have you seen on TV? Initially, the
> > > military purposes for censorship are to protect against things like
> > > protests on the home-front etc.... But as the victor writes the
> > > history it definitely helps lessen the impact of the horrors of war.
> > > It is not really hard to train someone to hold a rifle and march into
> > > battle. It's much harder to get him to go back and do it again
> > > although you won't have to wonder if he has sharpened his bayonet.
> > > The happy picture for humanity ironically has more to do with
> > > benefiting government power than humanity itself. This is evidenced
> > > by the fact that it does nothing to prevent violence and it has been
> > > practised vigorously regardless of political party. Although there is
> > > the easy argument that if it helps the American war machine maintain
> > > preparedness to go to war than it is necessary. After-all the Union
> > > was formed in part to "provide for the common defence". It is
> > > something we expect our tax dollars to be used for.
>
> > > On Dec 2, 7:35 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 3:41 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > What really drives history?
>
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > Hey Dev,
> > > > > Technically the American Revolution would have been
> > > > > unsuccessful without French help. So that's a good place to start.
> > > > > Obviously many countries exist who sucked at violence but got help.
> > > > > But I'm splitting hairs with the question obviously.
>
> > > > No, that is completely relevant. The point is the initial point: the
> > > > historical precedence for non-violence. If violence had a happy face,
> > > > if violence was not sanctioned by the hegemony, whatever--not the
> > > > issue. What has absolute pacifism accomplished mainly because of the
> > > > weight of its own non-force?
>
> > > > > I would not hazard a guess at your proportional question but attempts
> > > > > at non violent success may have been historically more common than
> > > > > known but had been quashed. History has been written by the victors
> > > > > after all.
>
> > > > Well...my question is pretty much how that last statement doesn't
> > > > confirm what I or the author have said precisely. :)
>
> > > > > -The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
> > > > > blood of patriots and tyrants,
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > > Jefferson
>
> > > > > I guess nowadays we can't go spilling the blood of patriots and
> > > > > tyrants.......Unless they are in another country of course. Non
> > > > > violent success seems to have something to do with how much violence
> > > > > is likely to be visited on the non violent.
>
> > > > Yes. The example of the Civil Rights movement is relevant to this, if
> > > > you read the article referenced. The non-violent success stories are
> > > > largely myths. People like to undermine the role of violence in the
> > > > success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> > > > humanity.
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> > > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:50 pm
From: Dev

It's a shaky slope, of course. We can eliminate the accusation of
'theist bias' since the only account of someone being banned for this
did this against the least liked poster in the history of, possibly
not just this group, but any group (what did he leave with? like 13000
ratings at a one-star average?). And he was a theist, the epitome of
theism.

The ultimatetruth banning was controversial. I supported it.
Afterwards, I'll admit I realized that I felt a little misled--he only
used the quote header and didn't actually post under the address.
Still, I figured we were obviously in grey territory, and since both
theists and atheists thought this threatened the integrity of the
limitations of the e-world (actually, it was mainly atheists who
voiced objections) I supported the decision of the mods of which I was
not a member at the time.

You're just so dishonest, checkers, you just have it in for everyone
who cleans up spam on this group for you and want special treatment
for theists so bad--of course we aren't taking you seriously. You're
trash. Maybe, if you were honest and had a conscience, we would take
you more seriously. It isn't our fault you are what you are, and we
are under no obligation to pretend you're something you clearly
aren't--namely, an honest human being.

On Dec 3, 10:49 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> i did not forget about you. look at this. it apears as though i posted
> it. it maches with my style of posting. YOU are impersonating me and
> this is ilegal.
>
> ***
> On Dec 3, 6:13 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (this you wrote)
>
> > > chx
> > > see i knew you had something against me.
> > > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my intelligents. har
> > > [chuckle]
>
> (here A42 replies to _me_)
>
> > Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> > Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> > people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> > same as disliking you.
>
> (here is my reply)
> chx
> i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him
> to
> the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
> of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
> and in most countries.
>
> ***
> you guys have free reign to do this in all topics without me knowing
> and this is ilegal. poeple like you should be banned to protect the
> others from this dangerous act as per Google Groups TOS. this is why
> Google deems this illegal conduct.
>
> On Dec 3, 6:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
>
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
>
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
>
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
>
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
>
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:51 pm
From: Dev

I wonder if the FBI is after checkers just like it's after Chris, by
his own admission.

On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see
> > that
> > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > according
> > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > now,
> > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense
> > of
> > > > > the term.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> > > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't
> > even
> > > > > be aware of it.
>
> > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > > that it was from me.
>
> > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > ***
>
> > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should
> > be
> > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > > chx
> > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report
> > us.
>
> > chx
> > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
> Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> happen again, rest assured.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
>
> > > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > > them which is what you did in this post.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> > ..
>
> > > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > > illegal.
>
> > > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > > understand.
> > > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > > ***
>
> > > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:18 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 12:16 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you
> see
> > > that
> > > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
> >
> > > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
> >
> > > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > > according
> > > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > > now,
> > > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle
> is
> > > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any
> sense
> > > of
> > > > > > the term.
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > > ***
> > > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content
> that
> > > > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
> >
> > > > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't
> > > even
> > > > > > be aware of it.
> >
> > > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a
> case
> > > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the
> fact
> > > > > that it was from me.
> >
> > > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
> >
> > > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an
> atheist.
> > > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > > ***
> >
> > > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
> >
> > > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they
> are
> > > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president.
> Just
> > > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message
> using
> > > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean,
> this
> > > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as
> if
> > > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
> >
> > > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
> >
> > > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
> >
> > > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who
> likes to
> > > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental
> illnesses
> > > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim
> that
> > > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not
> saying
> > > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that
> thread.)
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas
> etc.
> > > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat.
> impersonating
> > > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that
> goes
> > > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using
> my
> > > > > name above your deceiving messages.
> >
> > > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to
> report
> > > us.
> >
> > > chx
> > > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
> >
> > Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> > happen again, rest assured.
>
> <snip incomprehensible whining>

chx
i am a good christin
mocking me is illegal
but i don't report illegal activity yuk yuk yuk

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > > > ***
> > > > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <
> theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back
> they
> > > > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
> >
> > > > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come
> from
> > > > > them which is what you did in this post.
> >
> > > > >
> http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> > > ..
> >
> > > > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because
> it's
> > > > > illegal.
> >
> > > > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > > > understand.
> > > > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > > > ***
> >
> > > > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:42 pm
From: Dev

Lie. Fuck off.

On Dec 3, 8:57 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> rappoccio wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
>
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
>
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
>
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
>
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
>
> > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spoofing
>
> > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > source."
>
> > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > reason.
>
> > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > violating the TOS.
>
> > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > away that I'll never get back.
>
> > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > to ban only theists?
>
> They banned Wanderer and then recently LiamToo. LiamToo, as I
> gathered, did not post any personal information, but the mods thought
> that he is the same as Wanderer.
>
> How did they came up of this? Because they sounded the same.
>
> Preposterous indeed!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who's for banning LedZepp?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e62147ab0129248c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:56 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 11:43, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> > > chx
> > > see i knew you had something against me.
> > > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my intelligents. har
> > > [chuckle]
>
> > Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> > Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> > people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> > same as disliking you.
>
> chx
> i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him to
> the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
> of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
> and in most countries.

You did not!
Are you sure?
It reads as if it were from you, there are no clues that it cannot be
from you!

Wait.. ah shit, Turner, you scallywag!
Fooled me!

checkers, are you saying that in your country there are no
impersonators on TV, they have all been arrested?
Really?
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:56 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Joe <thelemiccatholic@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Your thread title is misleading. You aren't talking about "Theism and
> special privilege," since obviously Bush and the irate driver are both
> theists. Bush gets special privilege because he's "The Decider," not
> because he's a theist.

Ah. So it's okay for "The Decider" to be crazy as a loon but no the driver?

>
>
> On Nov 30, 11:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
> >
> > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist
> for
> > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was
> not
> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > troops into Iraq?
> >
> > Exactly what is the difference between the two?
> >
> > In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out
> there
> > committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> > credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
> >
> > Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> > By ROBERT CROWE
> > San Antonio Express-News
> > Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
> >
> > The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> > South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> > because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> > the other car off the road, police said.
> >
> > The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> > the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
> >
> > "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> > taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> > Sheriff's Office.
> >
> > The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> > her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> > excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> > vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> > barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
> >
> > Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> > injuries.
> >
> > "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> > this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
> >
> > The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> > driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
> >
> > Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> > nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> > was unsatisfactory.
> >
> > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> and
> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> speech
> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> US
> > Supreme Court Justice
> >
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:04 pm
From: Saint Onan

No difference. God's fessed up, Trance. He really did tell that guy to
hit the woman's car.

http://stuffgodhates.com/?p=769

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Indigenous culture and beliefs
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2f29f31db899913a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:24 pm
From: Max

Bob, thank you for your input. I'll omit to comment on the
'demonically affected' Vietnamese girl and speaking in tongues issues
other than to say, that yes, I agree it does sound like chicanery &
silliness. Much the same as the 'supernatural' claims made by
thousands of deluded people found in every nook & cranny around the
world.

However the issue of mocking belief was what I wanted to address I
suppose.

Me a hypocrite..........perhaps. Socialised to not disrespect
indigenous beliefs. Most certainly. So why would I be reluctant to
mock indigenous beliefs publicly? Probably because their beliefs do
not affect me or my community, unlike rabid christians who attempt to
impose non secularism on us, affecting decisions on embryonic stem
cell research, political lobbying to legislate restrictions on same
sex relationships, lobbying for religious interferance re: Intelligent
design in school caricullum and many other issues.

Indigenous beliefs (albeit useless to explain our natural
surroundings) do not attempt to do what institutional monotheism does
& as a result, are impotent in the scheme of things. Interestingly
though, indigenous cultural sensitivities must be taken into account
for mining companies & I wonder if there is a cynical play on beliefs
to get a 'piece of the action' from some quarters so to speak.

I mean, Christian institutions have been greedily squeezing humanity
for millenia, so why not a few indigenous people too.

If it were so, then I'd be into 'em like a rat up a drainpipe I
suppose. Mocking or in all seriousness.

Max

On Dec 3, 11:43 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> I'm a Christian, without formal training in Christian apologetics, but
> having done sufficient reading to accept scholarly comments on
> Christ's undoubted existence, to say nothing of personal spiritual
> experiences. Others have them also. I've never "spoken in tongues"
> myself, due to a reluctance to hand mind over to another spiritual
> reality. But I recently met an electrical engineer, fellow Christian,
> who speaks Japanese fluently (and, no, he's not Japanese. He's white
> Australian). He wants to be a missionary to the Japanese. However he
> was struggling to learn the language, but told me that after an
> episode of "speaking in tongues", the very next day he found he was
> speaking the language quite fluently.
>
> However the devil can do something similar. I was watching a DVD of
> an old retreat by Bishop Fulton Sheen, who stated that a priest friend
> of his dealt with a young Vietnamese girl who was demonically
> affected. He found himself speaking perfect Latin, French and Spanish
> with the girl, but she'd never had any training in any of the
> languges. After exorcism, she no longer spoke a word of any of them.
> Tha'ts why I'm a bit wary of sticking my neck out on "tongues". But
> I'm digressing.
>
> In the case of indigenous beliefs, you are correct in saying that
> you've been trained to respect their beliefs as part of political
> correctness, in much the same way Pavlov's dogs were trained to
> salivate at the ringing of a bell.
>
> As to whether you'd be game to challenge their beliefs .... ? I think
> that would depend on context. If you were by yourself in Bourke,
> Western NSW, you'd be a brave, and stupid, man if you stood in the
> main street and verbally ridiculed their beliefs. If on the other
> hand you were in a debate with aboriginal academics, using restrained
> language, you'd probably be prepared to challenge them, and then share
> a politically correct goanna burger afterwards. They might even
> invite you to blow on their sacred Didgeridoo.
>
> In other words, you're a bit of a hypocrite.
>
> On Dec 3, 8:36 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dawkins outlines a view in conjunction with Kim Sterelny (philosopher)
> > in his book 'The God Delusion' pointing to a dramatic contrast in our
> > lives. Sterelny asserts that "intelligent as our species might be, we
> > are perversely intelligent".
>
> > Using the case in point with Australian Aboriginals, Dawkins continues
> > "The very same peoples who are so savvy about the natural world and
> > how to survive in it, simultaneously clutter their minds with beliefs
> > that are palpably false and for which the word 'useless' is a generous
> > understatement."
>
> > As a fairly comfortable westerner able to converse and discuss this &
> > that, I did get the sqeamish self conscious feeling that yes, I could
> > easily mock, berate and challenge the beliefs of monotheists (under
> > the correct cicumstances) but I would find it almost 'impossible' to
> > do the same to indiginous peoples beliefs. Why, I thought? Is this
> > hypocrisy or is it misplaced respect?
>
> > Is my view just political correctness gone mad or in fact is it me
> > just too reluctant to disrespect an indigenous peoples beliefs;
> > largely due to the social mores of my own socio economic grouping.
> > Even though I recognise that indiginous peoples don't ram their
> > beliefs down my throat. in my opinion, their beliefs are just as silly
> > and wacko as the christians and their beliefs.
>
> > I wonder if I would have the balls to tell an Australian Aboriginal or
> > any other indigenous person that their beliefs are shit, silly and
> > stupid. I wonder if I could be so 'out there'.
>
> > Do others here have similar concerns or would they feel no reluctance
> > to mock or denigrate indigenous peoples beliefs?
>
> > Max- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:34 pm
From: Max

Yeah, I agree. On the surface, it does look like a bit of hypocrisy
going on here (I'm speaking for myself only). Perhaps their beliefs
are so much part of their culture (which I 'spose the monotheists can
claim as well) which in our world, demands we respect these cultural
sensitivities.

It's a funny one. I'm still not 100% sure how to reconcile it, but the
disparity in approach could be justified as per the reasons I gave Bob
in a resposne to his post.

But in the final analysis, if a loon christian is affecting me & the
wider community, I'll parody their lunacy without compunction, but if
an Aboriginal mother was teaching her Dreamtime stories to her
children, I'd just shut up.

Thanks

Max

On Dec 4, 1:58 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Dawkins outlines a view in conjunction with Kim Sterelny (philosopher)
> > in his book 'The God Delusion' pointing to a dramatic contrast in our
> > lives. Sterelny asserts that "intelligent as our species might be, we
> > are perversely intelligent".
>
> > Using the case in point with Australian Aboriginals, Dawkins continues
> > "The very same peoples who are so savvy about the natural world and
> > how to survive in it, simultaneously clutter their minds with beliefs
> > that are palpably false and for which the word 'useless' is a generous
> > understatement."
>
> > As a fairly comfortable westerner able to converse and discuss this &
> > that, I did get the sqeamish self conscious feeling that yes, I could
> > easily mock, berate and challenge the beliefs of monotheists (under
> > the correct cicumstances) but I would find it almost 'impossible' to
> > do the same to indiginous peoples beliefs. Why, I thought? Is this
> > hypocrisy or is it misplaced respect?
>
> > Is my view just political correctness gone mad or in fact is it me
> > just too reluctant to disrespect an indigenous peoples beliefs;
> > largely due to the social mores of my own socio economic grouping.
> > Even though I recognise that indiginous peoples don't ram their
> > beliefs down my throat. in my opinion, their beliefs are just as silly
> > and wacko as the christians and their beliefs.
>
> > I wonder if I would have the balls to tell an Australian Aboriginal or
> > any other indigenous person that their beliefs are shit, silly and
> > stupid. I wonder if I could be so 'out there'.
>
> > Do others here have similar concerns or would they feel no reluctance
> > to mock or denigrate indigenous peoples beliefs?
>
> I know just what you mean. And yes, I think it is just political correctness
> (I think the "gone mad" is a bit redundant). It's the same sort of thing as
> what we see when people look at Muslims issuing death threats over cartoons
> and say "Well, you know, this is really OUR fault". I probably would be
> uncomfortable mocking indigenous peoples' beliefs, but only because I've had
> that state of mind hammered into me my whole life. Kind of an involuntary
> "white liberal guilt".
>
>
>
>
>
> > Max- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:51 pm
From: Max

On Dec 4, 2:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:36 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > As a fairly comfortable westerner able to converse and discuss this &
> > that, I did get the sqeamish self conscious feeling that yes, I could
> > easily mock, berate and challenge the beliefs of monotheists (under
> > the correct cicumstances) but I would find it almost 'impossible' to
> > do the same to indiginous peoples beliefs. Why, I thought? Is this
> > hypocrisy or is it misplaced respect?
>
> Perhaps its because you don't feel similarly threatened by those
> indigenous people's beliefs.

Yes, that may well be right. Not threatened personally, but in a macro
sense. No effect on my community.

> > I wonder if I would have the balls to tell an Australian Aboriginal or
> > any other indigenous person that their beliefs are shit, silly and
> > stupid. I wonder if I could be so 'out there'.
>
> One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
> to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
> compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
> antagonistic position. This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> advantage of.

Ah Brock, be careful here. Christian tolerance & compassion???? The
overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Yes, Mrs Magillicutty who
attends the church fete and is the sweetest little lovey, would
probably demonstrate all those characteristics, you would like to
think all christians manage as well, maybe even you.

Look, just start at the OT with all the deaths, killings, rapings,
warnings, blah blah. Your god and his earthly apparachicks have
predominantly been vengeful, nasty, maniulative, greedy and all the
rest of it.

Don't get lost in your 'cause celebre' that is not in fact what you
would wish thesism to be.

> > Do others here have similar concerns or would they feel no reluctance
> > to mock or denigrate indigenous peoples beliefs?
>
> I would simply question why you find virtue in "mocking" or
> "denigrating" peoples beliefs. This is not the same as agreeing with
> such beliefs. I clearly do not agree with atheism, but I don't
> ridicule people who hold such a position. I simply try to patiently,
> clearly and consistently share my contrasting positions, and to answer
> questions related to the positions to the best of my ability.

Virtue.....well from many atheists perspective (I can only speak for
myself though), institutionalised monotheism and all that it
represents has had 2000 years to entrench itself with all it's
falsehoods, mostly for the advantage of the powerful within.

Atheism, although not a new concept, has gained considerable ground in
the last 100 years or so and this has largely been as a result of
scientific discovery, democracy, education and free thought.

Turner made a great observation when he mentioned the use of cartoons
to highlight the foul thinking and behaviours of some monotheistic non
secular states. Parody, ridicule and mirth often provides a fantastic
vehicle to allow many to see the stupidity and danger and illogic with
what some would try to impose on us.

A virtue.....yes Brock.....in the face of what is quite dangerous and
fallacious.

Regards

Max

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:37 pm
From: Ruthie

Why do we have books that were published around the time of Jesus but
have no original bible that was published? We have proof of all these
people, who were around when Jesus was performing miracles but we have
no one writing about these events. I would think if it was dark for 40
days, like the bible said,there would be someone documenting this
amazing event.

Whenever you look for facts,you come up with no answer.

In 325 A D Constatine ordered a meeting at the council of Niceae ,so
all these different religions would decide what was christian
doctrine. Why would these religions have to come together and decide
on doctrine that was already supose to be the truth from the bible.

This shows me they came together and chaged the bible and made it fit
their agenda.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The good life
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2fdf103aa3f1dd09?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:38 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 7:40 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > you can't have knowledge of something w/o knowledge of *that* thing,

> Or rather, its objective truth is independent of whether a person has
> knowledge of it or not. :)

but you can't know the objective truth w/o knowledge of it.

> > see, if you say
> > the holy spirit told me so, the question is going to be, well how do
> > you know it's the holy spirit & not just your own certitude pretending
> > to stand outside of yourself.

> Rather, by noting that the positions are not based on existential or
> humanistic premises

it's human interest & values that conjures the notion of spirits, (w/o
any *real* evidence of any such things), as a way of dealing with
humanity's existential problems. iow, these positions which you
espouse are based on "existential" & "humanistic premises".

> the significant and notable subjectivity that
> such premises typically incur are absent.

that assertion belies the evidence.

> I simply note that it is the objective nature of the truth that
> establishes the verification, and not the converse. Or put another
> way, essence precedes existence.

i didn't say verification establishes the objective truth. i'm saying
verification establishes that knowledge reflects the objective truth.
see, your problem is that you merely assume that your fundamentalism
is based on the objective truth but that belief is subjective because
you can't legitimately establish that is is. all of that is because
your fundamentalism is based on fidiesm. giving lipservice to
objectivism doesn't make it any less fidiesm. look at what you repeat
over & over again: you believe such & such & presto chango, what you
happen to believe is really the case, independent of your belief. & on
top of that, if anybody bothers to point out the specious line you're
weaving here, you start babbling abt "humanistic premises", "man's
sinful nature". all of that would explain your own agenda. how ironic.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:41 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 7:48 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I see it, Brock is saying, that he is objective, and that it is
> true, and if you saw it his way, you would see it the same way too.

if i had his particuliar subjectivist view, i would. it's true brock
is saying that he is objective. so what? that doesn't demonstrate that
he is in fact objective.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:49 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 6:00 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you look at the span of 2000 years, he is correct We, have a
> priori knowledge of short and long term (business=5years, economics=20
> years), but there are other traditions (his) that looks at the history
> cycle quite differently, a traditition that measures time in epochs
> rather than increments.

fuck tradition. let's deal with reality. homo sapiens as a species
have been around for at least 100,000 years. in the course of all that
time, people have been trying to figure out what the world is really
abt, that is, what it is, & how things works & so on. while that's
been going on in increments, people have made up explanations to deal
with their anxiety abt
mortality, scarcity & conflict with others. deities & spirits are
projections of all of that. we invented them because we insist that
there has to be some grand purpose to everything. but really the world
is what we make it & what it makes of us in a natural process. there's
no big ego directing everything. all of that is just a figment in
people's heads.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:55 pm
From: Joe

On Nov 21, 2:40 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We all know that the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the
> other, since God cannot be examined by definition. Therefore the
> choice remains of either the theistic lifestyle, or the atheistic
> lifestyle, and how to obtain that way of life. Now the irony of all
> this is, that while the theistic lifestyle is invalid, they control
> the government.

"We all know that the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the
other."

"The theistic lifestyle is invalid."

Your two statements appear contradictory.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:51 pm
From: gousaphe

If only Paul's were teaching something akin to a replica to Jesus'
teachings. His, however, is not. Paul was a twisted mind admirer. When
he taught Christianity, his brand of Christianity is without a command
of Christ and is fooled.

On Dec 2, 11:07 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, there aren't much to learn from the New Testament
> > beside the words of Christ. The rest of the New Testament contains
> > mainly Paul's teachings.
>
> Even if Paul's teachings are not the same as Jesus' teachings, it
> doesn't follow that there's nothing to be learned from them. Indeed,
> it would be if Paul's teachings were a replica of Jesus' teachings
> that there would be nothing to learn from them. Perhaps you mean that
> whatever there is to learned from Paul's teachings, you don't find it
> worth learning.
>
> > Paul was Saul and Saul was a persecutor of
> > Christians and of Christianity.
>
> He wasn't a persecutor of Christians at the time he wrote his
> epistles. In his epistles, does he acknowledge having been a
> persecutor of Christians or does he only acknowledges being a great
> sinner? It's the author of Acts who calls him a persecutor of
> Christians.
>
> > Paul taught things that he did not comprehend,
>
> Whereas Jesus comprehended everything he taught?
>
> > that was because he was
> > made a slave of Christianity,
> > 'He committed sins become the slave of sins.'
> > No offense, but Paul's words are the words of a slave.
>
> > There are much to learn from the words of the prophets of the Old
> > Testament.
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:32 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 6:20 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A categorical no is the answer to your question.
> > > > For one, Jesus would not have in anyway tolerated hypocrites like the
> > > > Pharisees and the Sadducee.
>
> > > There are no Christian Pharisees or Saducees. So, a diversity similar
> > > to the diversity in Judaism would not include Christian Pharisees or
> > > Saducees.
>
> > > > He was too a Jew and they have never tolerated him, had they?
> > > > Two, one is Christian not because of idle belief but by learning and
> > > > doing the words of Christ.
>
> > > Then, do you ignore the rest of the words in the New Testament? "Words
> > > of Christ" comprise a small fraction of the canonical gospels and the
> > > rest of the New Testament has no "words of Christ".
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> > > > > wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> > > > > (below) diversity of belief?
>
> > > > > Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> > > > > On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> > > > > that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> > > > > live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> > > > > that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> > > > > priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
> > > > > but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> > > > > is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> > > > > Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> > > > > Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> > > > > in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> > > > > the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> > > > > dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> > > > > so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> > > > > Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> > > > > this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> > > > > religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> > > > > dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> > > > > demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> > > > > Hayyim)
>
> > > > > Ressurection belief:
> > > > > In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> > > > > resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> > > > > non-orthodox.
>
> > > > > Belief in a soul:
> > > > > Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> > > > > of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> > > > > Lack of belief in afterlife:
> > > > > many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> > > > > the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> > > > > belief.
>
> > > > >http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:53 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 7:15 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > he can't possess all knowledge if he is infinite. that's because
> > infinity is immeasurable. insisting otherwise is like insisting that
> > he can make a square circle.

> Rather, I'm simply noting that His knowledge is not bounded or limited
> by issues of quantity or cardinality over any particular domain.

that's *simply* impossible if objective reality is inexhaustible. the
issue here is that it's impossible for god to have complete knowledge
of himself if he is infinite. you are *simply* ignoring what infinity
means.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:58 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 5:59 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > he can't possess all knowledge if he is infinite. that's because
> > infinity is immeasurable. insisting otherwise is like insisting that
> > he can make a square circle.
>
> Brock also thinks God is "incomprehensible" (that's what his
> Westminster Confession claims), so I'm not really too sure how he know
> all this other crap about God too.
>
> Maybe Brock IS God?

well, the matter is, that position can't be held by anybody because
god is an impossible being. an infinite being can not be omniscient. a
being that creates the basis of suffering can not be omnibenevolent. &
a being that is obiliged to dole out
eternal punishment can't be omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:04 pm
From: Joe

You are confounding nastiness and vengefulness with holiness and
righteousness. God is holy; therefore He hates nastiness such as
humans display. He is righteous; therefore He punishes the wickedness
of humans. He has a right to vengeance, since it is He whom humans
have offended by their sins. He created us with rationality, and He
gave us rational commands, that lead to Life. Yet when we disobey Him
and find death, you are surprised and call Him nasty and vengeful.
Look within yourself for the source of the nastiness.

You fail to comprehend God's punishing of sin because to you, sin is
not that big of a deal. That is because it is not you who is offended
by your sins. If it were something that offended you personally, you
would make a much bigger deal out of it. Yet you object when God
takes sin seriously enough to punish it.

On Dec 1, 6:10 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Joe
> your logic does not compute with me, but then I am not a
> Christian. Look, first you talk of God being the ultimate
> mystery, and now you talk of Love being the ultimate
> mystery. There are so many sorts of love.
> However, you have now defined the type of love you are
> talking about, and you say Love equates to God's will.
> It is obvious to me that God's will in the OT is vengeful,
> where he visits destruction on the third and fourth
> generations etc. Now, in my little brain, if a creator
> so hates his creation that he needs to play Hitler
> like that, then that can't be love, no matter how you
> define it. Sorry Joe. You must be prepared to accept
> the good with the bad. So, assuming you are, then you
> have to accept that the other "face" of God is nasty and
> vengeful.
>
> On Dec 2, 7:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Properly, Love means God's Will.
>
> > Love means that condition of the universe that He who is maximal
> > goodness intended for it when He created it. Love is the situation we
> > would be in perpetually were there no evil, and it is the situation
> > God will bring about along with the complete banishment of evil.
>
> > In particular individual situations that arise, love is God's Will for
> > those situations.
>
> > We can know God is Love by coming to Him and coming to know Him. Love
> > is the ultimate mystery, but it is also known to those who love. How
> > something can be known and still be a mystery is a mystery known to
> > those who love.
>
> > On Dec 1, 3:36 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Joe
> > > What do you mean by Love?
> > > If you're talking about the love God shows in the Old T, I'll pass.
> > > That's not love.
>
> > > If God is the ultimate mystery, then you can't know he is love,
> > > surely?
>
> > > On Dec 1, 7:50 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 30, 3:16 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > So what you are saying is that you get "glimpses of God"
> > > > > but you don't know who or what God is for sure -
>
> > > > No, what I am saying is that I know for sure God is Love, and Love is
> > > > infinite, and I experience the infinity of Love as ever-increasing
> > > > love in me. To increase without bound is actually the definition of
> > > > infinity.
>
> > > > > all you
> > > > > know is that this being/entity is all powerful and all
> > > > > encompassing and has the ability to do what it will
> > > > > with you. It also likes to be glorified.
>
> > > > That is a human guess at what God "likes" according to a human
> > > > perspective.
>
> > > > I would say, rather, that God deserves to be glorified, and when a
> > > > finite being encounters Him, that finite being's natural reaction is
> > > > to give Him glory, or else to hate Him if the being hates Love.
>
> > > > > Still, with all of this
> > > > > it remains a mystery?
>
> > > > Infinity cannot be rendered comprehensible to a finite being. God is
> > > > the ultimate Mystery.
>
> > > > > On Nov 30, 5:21 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Actually Joe, I was using it purely as a definition.
> > > > > > > It seems to me that when people believe in God, God is different
> > > > > > > for every person who believes in him/her. Some people believe
> > > > > > > God is a person and has human form. Others say, no, God is a
> > > > > > > spirit, and the third lot suggest that God is both.
> > > > > > > Then there is the metaphysical side of things, where people don't
> > > > > > > relate to God as anything like a human entity, but more like the
> > > > > > > power of life, or the consciousness of the universe, the oneness
> > > > > > > of all life, etc. My question was limited to asking what Christians
> > > > > > > thought their God was, hence my asking for a definition from
> > > > > > > them. There is no ulterior motive - just being respectful of
> > > > > > > something I can't relate to, or believe in.
>
> > > > > > I wold say that all the above descriptions are limited ideas of
> > > > > > attributes of God. Limited ideas are the only ideas we can have, of
> > > > > > an infinite Entity, so I prefer to acknowledge that for the most part
> > > > > > God is Unknown. I believe He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus
> > > > > > Christ, as previously as the Word to the prophets of old. I believe
> > > > > > the Word remains with us, in the Holy Eucharist, so that there is no
> > > > > > limit to how much Love will reveal both now and forever, and yet
> > > > > > everything He has revealed at any time will still be nothing compared
> > > > > > with the infinity that lies still hidden in Love. He will always be
> > > > > > for the most part Unknown to us as the Infinite Mystery, but He has
> > > > > > revealed enough for us to know Him as Love, and that is Enough, for
> > > > > > Love is Infinite. And the infinity of Love is Incarnate, in the
> > > > > > Eucharist.
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> No, it is your move. Where do we go with this?
>
> > > > > > > > Or did you actually only honestly want to know what God is?
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 12:01 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > So far?
> > > > > > > > > Do you want more?
> > > > > > > > > If so, please add.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 1:10 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 5:42 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Okay Joe
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's try and get some sense here.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, your definition of God is going to be:
> > > > > > > > > > > God is:
> > > > > > > > > > > Unique (in that there is only one God).
> > > > > > > > > > > Universal (in that he is the God of All).
> > > > > > > > > > > Life-generating (in that he is the Origin of all life).
> > > > > > > > > > > Personal (in that he may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.)
> > > > > > > > > > > Omnipotent (in that he is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
> > > > > > > > > > > Benevolent (in that god is Kind to His children.)
> > > > > > > > > > > Incomprehensible (in that he is infinite).
> > > > > > > > > > > In short, Joe is postulating:
> > > > > > > > > > > God is the unique, universal, all-powerful, benevolent Person
> > > > > > > > > > > who is the source of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > > Have I got this right Joe, or have I got it wrong?
>
> > > > > > > > > > So far, so good.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 5:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> First of all, I am amazed to see some possible progress in a thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > like this. Bravo to you both, philosopher and Alan, for bringing it
> > > > > > > > > > > > this far. My hope is restored!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I too was struck by the nearness of the miss in the opening post.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "the big Skydaddy who rules over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Skydaddy is a common derogatory form of "Heavenly Father." The
> > > > > > > > > > > > thought is that "Heavenly Father" sounds too normal, since we often
> > > > > > > > > > > > pray to our heavenly Father, in fact, Our Lord began the Lord's Prayer
> > > > > > > > > > > > with "Our Father who art in Heaven." Had His words instead been
> > > > > > > > > > > > historically rendered into the common English as "Our Daddy who art in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the Sky," no doubt atheists would choose a different phrase to mock
> > > > > > > > > > > > that. Maybe philosopher would have said, "I understand him to be the
> > > > > > > > > > > > big Cloud Stud. . ." or something that sounds equally mocking.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > But I understand that to be cursed with atheism is to suffer a social
> > > > > > > > > > > > handicap, so I'll let it slide. After all, there isn't anyone here
> > > > > > > > > > > > more socially backwards than yours truly --- ask any atheist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, analyzing phil's phrase for content, I find, mocking
> > > > > > > > > > > > phraseology aside, he has done a passable job.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "the" not "a" --- indicating this entity is Unique.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "big" not "small" --- indicating this unique entity is important
> > > > > > > > > > > > rather than inconsequential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Skydaddy" --- a compound we should break down:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Sky" --- indicating that this entity is associated with the vastness
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the universe rather than just the local planet.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "daddy" --- indicating that this entity has the power to generate new
> > > > > > > > > > > > life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "who" --- indicating a Person rather than an impersonal force or
> > > > > > > > > > > > principle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "rules" --- indicating that this unique, important, universal, life-
> > > > > > > > > > > > generating Person has the power of control.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "over" --- a preposition joining said power of control with its object
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "all" --- the object-set over which the entity has control --- in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > case, what is being asserted is omnipotence, "power over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > So we have a pretty good picture of God, from an atheist. Not bad.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Big" seems redundant given omnipotence. But God, according to this
> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding is:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. unique --- there is only one God.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. universal --- He is the God of All.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. life-generating --- He is the Origin of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. personal --- He may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5.
>
> ...
>
> read more »

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity"
group.

To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 17 topics - digest

Atheism vs Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:55 pm
From: Medusa

Answer_42 wrote:

> On Dec 2, 10:22�pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Christianity is not a "get out of hell free" card, it is a new
>
> Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible
> is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with
> me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are
> wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster
> Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar
> crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the
> measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla

BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

You always make me laugh when you reply to Brock.

Medusa

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:57 pm
From: Bob Crowley

I can ignore it. I don't even read it. Easy. After you've read
"Jack and Jill went up the Hill once", it's time to move on to
something else.

On Dec 4, 8:26 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> Christian Borgan cannot ignore my truth.
>
> On Dec 3, 2:23 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I'd ignore Woodbridge if I were you Brock. Every post I've seen from
> > him is the same old pile of cut and paste. Don't bother - you're
> > wasting your time.
>
> > On Dec 4, 5:31 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:
>
> > > "Labeling Atheists
> > > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > > either side of the argument of truth.
> > > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > > addressed.
> > > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > > way."
> > > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > > torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > > Stating unsupportable facts
> > > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> > >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
>
> > > On Dec 3, 11:23 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> > > > >> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> > > > >> advantage of.
>
> > > > > Threats now, huh Brocky boy?
>
> > > > No threat at all in my statement:
>
> > > > "One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
> > > > to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
> > > > compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
> > > > antagonistic position."
>
> > > Prove it
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:58 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 2:57 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> I can ignore it. I don't even read it. Easy.
This is PROOF you are lieing

> After you've read
> "Jack and Jill went up the Hill once", it's time to move on to
> something else.
>
Prove it
> On Dec 4, 8:26 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > Christian Borgan cannot ignore my truth.
>
> > On Dec 3, 2:23 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > I'd ignore Woodbridge if I were you Brock. Every post I've seen from
> > > him is the same old pile of cut and paste. Don't bother - you're
> > > wasting your time.
>
> > > On Dec 4, 5:31 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:
>
> > > > "Labeling Atheists
> > > > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > > > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > > > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > > > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > > > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > > > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > > > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > > > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > > > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > > > either side of the argument of truth.
> > > > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > > > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > > > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > > > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > > > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > > > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > > > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > > > addressed.
> > > > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > > > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > > > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > > > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > > > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > > > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > > > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > > > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > > > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > > > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > > > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > > > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > > > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > > > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > > > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > > > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > > > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > > > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > > > way."
> > > > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > > > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > > > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > > > torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > > > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > > > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > > > Stating unsupportable facts
> > > > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > > > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > > > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > > > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > > > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > > > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > > > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > > > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > > > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > > > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > > > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > > > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > > > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > > > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > > > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > > > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > > > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > > > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > > > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> > > >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 11:23 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> > > > > >> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> > > > > >> advantage of.
>
> > > > > > Threats now, huh Brocky boy?
>
> > > > > No threat at all in my statement:
>
> > > > > "One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
> > > > > to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
> > > > > compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
> > > > > antagonistic position."
>
> > > > Prove it
>
> > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > Brock

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:57 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 2:49 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 4:04 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 1:03 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 12:15 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Labeling Atheists
> > > > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > > > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > > > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > > > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > > > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > > > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > > > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > > > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > > > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > > > either side of the argument of truth.
> > > > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > > > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > > > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > > > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > > > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > > > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > > > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > > > addressed.
> > > > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > > > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > > > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > > > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > > > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > > > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > > > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > > > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > > > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > > > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > > > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > > > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > > > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > > > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > > > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > > > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > > > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > > > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > > > way."
> > > > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > > > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > > > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > > > torture people."
>
> > > That is something Christians here hear all the time from atheists
> > > here. It is far more common than the reverse. So maybe the point of
> > > your post should be that many atheists are hypocrites.
>
> > No because many Christians are hypocrites.
> > VERY clear in title of posting
>
> And contradicted by the preponderance of atheistic postings more or
> less exactly like that which you cite just above.
>
Not contradicted by the preponderance of atheistic postings more or
less exactly like that which you cite just above.
Many Christians are hypocrites
VERY clear in title of posting

Also your Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:

"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
> > > > The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > > > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > > > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > > > Stating unsupportable facts
> > > > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > > > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > > > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > > > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > > > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > > > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > > > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > > > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > > > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > > > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > > > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > > > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > > > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > > > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > > > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > > > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > > > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > > > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > > > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> > > >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I know your God doesn't exist.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/f1ee8b5d7f597854?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:59 pm
From: Joe

On Nov 25, 6:18 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 5:22 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 8:47 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 11:23 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > . . .
> > > > > > You are basing your assessment of the probability of evolution after
> > > > > > the fact, assigning it 1 since it in fact happened.
>
> > > > > Yes, yes I am.
>
> > > > > > But its
> > > > > > likelihood, among all possibilities, has still always been very very
> > > > > > low.
>
> > > > > Really? And how is that calculated?
>
> > > > By logical thinking, to begin with.
>
> > > Logically, odds are calculated by dividing the number of occurances of
> > > the instance to calculate with the number of all possible occurances.
> > > Please provide the math to back up your conclusion.
>
> > The possibilities are infinite.
>
> How did you come to that conclusion?
>
> > So the number of all possible
> > occurrences is infinity, the denominator of our fraction. The number
> > of known instances of life as we know it on a planet is 1.
>
> But it only represents one possibility of how life could have arrived
> on our planet. Who's to say the way it happened was the only way it
> could have?
>
> > So the
> > fraction is 1/infinity, which we usually describe as infinitesimal.
>
> Since how you arrived at both the numerator and denominator is
> baseless, so is any conclusion based off of that calculation.
>
> > The likelihood of evolution occurring anywhere is infinitesimal. Yet
> > here, we are.

O.K., you go ahead and supply me with more correct figures, and we'll
plug them in.

If possibility is finite, then kindly enumerate the possibilities.
Round it off to the nearest integer, for convenience's sake. I think
if the possibilities are not infinite, then it is a number very, very
large. Maybe "G."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number

Now also, that other figure I arrived at, is based on observation.
Number of habited planets we have observed: 1.

So, 1 / G, while not 0, is damn close. For any 1 / x, as x ->
infinity, 1 / x -> infinitesimal.

But you work it out with your own numbers, and tell me what you arrive
at.

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:06 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, zencycle <zencycle@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 5:40 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>>
>> I simply note that the above dialog presents a humorous exchange that
>> illustrates productive discourse is a two way street, and that a clear
>> position of mine may not always be recognized as such by the OP for
>> reasons that are less than commendable.
>
> Productive discourse is a two way street...hmm.... is that why you
> refuse to clarify your positions other than repasting the original
> verbiage?

Its why I patiently and consistently reply to a large majority of
follow ups, understanding that to reject implied or explicit premises
are rarely well received by atheists, perhaps likely because they are
not used to framing their positions outside such premises, or without
additional pejoratives, ad hominem and invective.

> If you were truly interested in constructive dialog, you
> would seek to rephrase your positions that were misconstrued or
> misinterpreted, rather than simply repeating yourself and having us
> play a guessing game as to when we happen to stumble upon the correct
> interpretation.

It sounds like a contrived conclusion. I simply note that I respond
as best as I can, if the responses are not sufficient, I try to
clarify; if the clarifications are deemed not sufficient, I
frequently question the premises by which such evaluations are made.
If after repeated responses questions of sufficiency continue, I do
feel free to question the presumption of such evaluations.

> That isn't constructive, brock, it's frustrating and
> simply leads to us making assumptions about your position, which may
> or may not be correct.

I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of
internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken
great care to be as clear as I can in my positions. If many atheists
reject such positions and accuse me for a misunderstanding, I simply
respond by noting that often the problem is not the misunderstanding
of a position, its rather the rejection of the position under guise of
misunderstanding.

To a person who engages in a repeated exchange with me and concludes
items such as (for example):

> You do not deserve respect. Some would say you deserve contempt.

> The more you write, the more you prove I am right

> See how dishonest you are?

> You are clearly not making an effort.

I simply make the notation that you've responded to above about
productive dialogue a two-way street.

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:18 pm
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

On Dec 3, 3:06 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 5:40 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> >> I simply note that the above dialog presents a humorous exchange that
> >> illustrates productive discourse is a two way street, and that a clear
> >> position of mine may not always be recognized as such by the OP for
> >> reasons that are less than commendable.
>
> > Productive discourse is a two way street...hmm.... is that why you
> > refuse to clarify your positions other than repasting the original
> > verbiage?
>
> Its why I patiently and consistently reply to a large majority of
> follow ups, understanding that to reject implied or explicit premises
> are rarely well received by atheists, perhaps likely because they are
> not used to framing their positions outside such premises, or without
> additional pejoratives, ad hominem and invective.
>
> > If you were truly interested in constructive dialog, you
> > would seek to rephrase your positions that were misconstrued or
> > misinterpreted, rather than simply repeating yourself and having us
> > play a guessing game as to when we happen to stumble upon the correct
> > interpretation.
>
> It sounds like a contrived conclusion. I simply note that I respond
> as best as I can, if the responses are not sufficient, I try to
> clarify; if the clarifications are deemed not sufficient, I
> frequently question the premises by which such evaluations are made.
> If after repeated responses questions of sufficiency continue, I do
> feel free to question the presumption of such evaluations.
>
> > That isn't constructive, brock, it's frustrating and
> > simply leads to us making assumptions about your position, which may
> > or may not be correct.
>
> I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of
> internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken
> great care to be as clear as I can in my positions. If many atheists
> reject such positions and accuse me for a misunderstanding, I simply
> respond by noting that often the problem is not the misunderstanding
> of a position, its rather the rejection of the position under guise of
> misunderstanding.
>
> To a person who engages in a repeated exchange with me and concludes
> items such as (for example):
>
> > You do not deserve respect. Some would say you deserve contempt.
> > The more you write, the more you prove I am right
> > See how dishonest you are?
> > You are clearly not making an effort.
>
> I simply make the notation that you've responded to above about
> productive dialogue a two-way street.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:14 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 18:06, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of
> internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken

Yes Brock, we know, we have heard it all before.
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:06 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 2:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So essentially, Asherahs are pieces of wood.

Would you say from the following that God is essentially a fire
breathing dragon that doesn't have its own wings but depends on kerub
steeds in order to fly?
The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains
shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his
nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out
of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his
feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the
wind. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him—the dark
rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence clouds
advanced, with hailstones and bolts of lightning. YHWH thundered from
heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded. He shot his arrows and
scattered the enemies, [sent] great bolts of lightning and routed
them. (Psalm 18:7-14)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tetragrammaton

> Should we worship a
> piece of wood? Even if someone claims to receive prophecy from their
> piece of wood?

Should we worship a dragon? Even if someone claims to receive prophecy
from their dragon?

> On Dec 3, 5:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> > > > The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
> > > > place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?
>
> > > I understand the definition of air. I understand the definition of
> > > God. Kindly define for me this word Asherah.
>
> > Glean a definition from this:
>
> > Though all three ancient Levantine great goddesses appear in the
> > Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, Asherah occurs most often:
> > forty times in nine books. The biblical texts are hostile witnesses,
> > for they either vilify the goddess or, more often, obliterate her
> > grammatically, for instance, by referring to her in the masculine
> > plural as "the asherahs." Until the Ugaritic tablets were deciphered
> > beginning in the 1930s, most scholars did not even speculate that "the
> > asherahs" might be obscuring a goddess(Hadley 2000:4). They
> > interpreted "the asherahs" as either wooden poles, cult objects from
> > Baal worship, or groves of trees. Only a brave few claimed that "the
> > asherahs" referred to a goddess citing such passages as I Kings 18, in
> > which "prophets of Asherah"(1) served Queen Jezebel(Binger 1997:111;
> > Yamashita 1963:126). The first detailed study of Asherah in the Hebrew
> > Bible after the Ugaritic discoveries concluded that "the asherah"
> > represented both a wooden cult object and a goddess (Reed 1949:37,
> > 53), a position some scholars still hold today.
>
> > Unquestionably, "the asherahs" were usually wooden; they stood
> > upright, often beside altars, along with stone pillars. However, in at
> > least eight instances, they are described as carved(Pettey 1990:45).
> > Thus, far from being merely wooden "cult poles," they were probably
> > quite large carved images. As was the case with cult statues in other
> > areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, "the asherahs" almost certainly
> > would have been "animated" ritually (Walker and Dick 1999:57). Thus
> > they did not just represent the goddess, but actually were worshipped
> > as Asherah herself. Further, according to the Bible, a statue of
> > Asherah stood in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem for about two-
> > thirds of its existence (Patai 1990:50). Asherah "must, then, have
> > been a legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh" (Olyan 1988:13).
>
> > The Hebrew Scriptures regularly pair Asherah's name, especially "the
> > asherahs," with Baal's, so that some scholars have wondered whether
> > Asherah had ousted Astarte as Baal's consort. In 1963 Yamashita noted
> > that most of the references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, including
> > those pairing Asherah with Baal, were associated with only one source
> > (1963:123-137). Later, Olyan argued very convincingly that the
> > biblical attacks on Asherah were "restricted to the Deuteronomistic
> > History"(2) and to texts exhibiting Deuteronomistic influence. For
> > instance, the numerous pairings of Baal with Asherah's "cult symbol,"
> > called "the asherah," are part of a reformist, monotheistic "anti-
> > asherah polemic" aimed at discrediting "the asherah" by associating it
> > with Baal and Astarte (Olyan 1988: 1, 3, 13-14). This polemic was
> > necessary because Asherah "had some role in the cult of Yahweh … not
> > only in popular Yahwism, but in the official cult as well" (Olyan
> > 1988:74).
>
> > In addition to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, there is also
> > considerable archaeological evidence that may throw light on the role
> > of Asherah in the religion of the early Israelites. First, a
> > considerable number of small, clay, female statuettes, which
> > archaeologists usually call "pillar figurines," have been unearthed
> > all over Israel. Dating to the eighth and early seventh centuries,
> > that is, to the height of the Israelite monarchy, they occur in almost
> > every excavation of the period (Kletter 1996: 4, 40-41).(3) So many
> > pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that
> > they are often regarded as "a characteristic expression of Judahite
> > piety" (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:327; Kletter 1996:45).
>
> > Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> > Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> > god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> > Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> > from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> > translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> > drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> > Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> > Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> > Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> > god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> > Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> > from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> > translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> > drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> > Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> >http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faux Pas Tolerance: New Atheism Fosters Misunderstanding
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0a1034895f75bc9a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:19 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 9:04 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Dec 3, 10:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > from:
>
> > >http://www.spectrummagazine.org/collegiate/2008/05/29/faux_pas_tolera...
>
> > > interesting points:
>
> > > "What the "New Atheists," and indeed post modern society, put forth as
> > > "tolerance" is simply repackaged secular apathy. When we talk about
> > > being religious without "imposing" your beliefs on others, or
> > > practicing religion within the confines of one's on home, what we are
> > > in effect saying is that these beliefs are not important and, since we
> > > can't agree on what truth is, have no relevance to the grander world.
> > > Unfortunately, religion is, like politics, a branch of philosophy,
> > > which means that its entire point is to try and tackle the questions
> > > of the world at large."
>
> > > and:
>
> > > "Why is it that secular humanism (Which entails the feeling that the
> > > evolutionary picture has discredited conservative religion) holds a
> > > privileged place? "Because it is backed by rigorous science," the New
> > > Atheist would say, dismissing non-liberal religion as shallow dogma.
> > > Liberal religion, too, is hardly more than a lukewarm fusion of
> > > secular humanism and lip-service to belief, and as such many
> > > Christians do not see a problem: one's religious world view is simply
> > > not supposed to have impact on real life. You can believe it, so long
> > > as it doesn't govern your actions, your business decisions, your
> > > vote... the only accepted standard for action is humanism."
>
> > > All in all, a thought provoking opinion piece from a computer science
> > > and mathematics student.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock
>
> > Hey look, a Christian posts something to a Christian website and takes
> > offense to people who don't respect Christianity because they think
> > it's evil. And then takes offense that people don't want it crammed
> > down their throat. And completely misunderstands moral systems that
> > aren't based on pretending you have an imaginary friend and reading a
> > 2000-5000 year old piece of fiction written by neolithic goatherders
> > as absolute fact.
>
> > What a fucking shocker.
>
> > Not worth the paper it's printed on.
>
> There is a good point here: why is it okay to base things like your
> vote on humanism which is philosophically as justified as religious
> moralities, when there is nothing in a democracy that states that one
> has to have ANY reason for voting the way one does?

If religious morality is something that one learns from a book and
that one is not at liberty to change, the morality might be a
prescribed one rather than a philosophically justified one.

> I have the right to act on my religion in public just as anyone else
> has the right to act on their secular beliefs in public.

Sure, so long as your acts are legal. If you sacrifice your daughter
to God like Jephthah or massacre Afghans saving their virgin daughters
to be gifted to God like in Leviticus 31:40, you'd be on the wrong
side of the law.

> When it
> comes to laws, that's what democracy is for; the most votes wins.

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:19 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 15:54, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> chx
> good, so let me share a secret with you since you have not done your
> homework. but first i want to make sure of your knowledge on this
> claim of deleting the post is firm.
>
> how would you know if a post was deleted within a topic thread?
>
> oh! don't bother wasting our time, i'll tell you to save youse days of
> research.
>
> it is like this...wait, i'll just paste it from Google help (i
> stumbled apon it at one time, i have a good memory);
>
> ***
> Why does it say there are more posts in a thread than there really
> are?
> In the Discussions section of each group, you'll see a list of recent
> topics, along with the number of messages posted to each thread. Note
> that if a message is deleted from a thread, the total message count
> won't decrease. For example, if there are five posts in a thread and
> you delete one, the message count will still show five posts even
> though only four now appear in the thread.
>
> So, if the number of messages you can see in a thread is smaller than
> the number listed in the Discussions section, there's no need to get
> out the magnifying glass; it's likely that someone posted a message
> that was later deleted.
> ***
>
> if you take the trouble to go check that topic thread you will find
> exactly 451 posts as the number indicates. this proves no post was
> deleted.
>
> if you read carefully you would notice that Keith changed TU's handle,
> nothing was said about that. in some other thread an atheist did same
> to keith and he went nuts about it, again nothing happened. damn, i
> have a good memory ;)
>
> ok, so who is the next DONKEY. why won't the moderators show?

It seems YOU are the donkey.

This information you posted from Google Groups Help only applies to
the moments following the deletion of a post.
For a while the post total count and the number of message displayed
is out of sync.

After a while (I do not know how long) the count catches up with
reality and all is well again.

You want proof?

Look at this thread:

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/786acd38fa3170df

See message #13 where I reply to a post by LiamToo which was time-
stamped at 2:11pm?
"
On Nov 17, 2:11 pm, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > And perhaps you need to read my response. The inclusion of some real
> > historical events doesn't prove the story they are found in is true.

> I was very specific on the historical events above. Can you say which
> one is not true?
(...)
"

Can you fin a post by LiamToo posted at 2:11pm in that thread? No. You
cannot.
Why? Well, as LiamToo was fervent of doing, he had deleted it because
it made him look like an ass (I am sure you appreciate the humour
here...).

Now, look at the message count: 55.
Count the number of posts in the thread: 55.

You can try the same thing with the "OT: Who are your greatest bands
of all time" thread where LiamToo deleted a few posts. The total
stated is 243, and guess what, there are 243 messages in the thread.

So, ready to bray?
___________________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:38 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 16:21, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> > > chx
> > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see that
> > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed according
> > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up now,
> > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense of
> > the term.
>
> chx
> no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> ***
> On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > chx
> > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
> > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't even
> > be aware of it.
>
> Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> and it would be serious.
> However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> that it was from me.
>
> So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> _________________________________
> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> ***

You fuckinig asswipe, you just proved me right!

I replied here, in this thread, that I did not write anything that
could mean I was accepting any blame or that I knew I had done
something wrong. Instead, I wrote that I knew I had made fun of you
but had done so using my own handle, so it is not against the rule.

And here you are posting my own text that says that, almost word for
word.

Idiot.

<snip>

> chx
> it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean,

Yes, this is what I mean, idiot.

> this
> was the same with Keith and TU.

No, it is not.
TU replied to Keith, but changed the text Google automatically
inserted, which from Keith's message, and rewrote it to make Keith
look stupid (Which was unnecessary, Keith was perfectly capable of
doing that all on his own.)
While being truly despicable, what TU did was borderline, not quite
spoofing. But later he actually spoofed Keith, and was banned
accordingly.

And here you are screaming bias.

Who defended Keith? Atheists! Who thought that Keith was worthless as
a poster? Atheists! Who still defended him, regardless? Atheists!
Who did not speak up to condemn TU? Theists! Who did condemn TU?
Atheists!

So shut up already with your whining about a big atheist conspiracy
and about how biased the mods or atheists are.

If you cannot see the difference between your situation and Keith's
you are definitely retarded.

> however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> your heading fool. you impersonated me.

Yes, I know.
And I did a damned good job, heck, I even fooled you!

.<snip>

> chx
> what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal.

Only the in the court inside you deluded mind.

> that goes
> for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> name above your deceiving messages.

You mean like this:

chx
I be real good at this debate thing.
Atheists cannot win against my logic yuk yuk yuk
And I like to pee in my diaper, it be keeping me warm [chuckle]
________________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:44 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 17:34, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> chx
> no, you don't get it, i have morals and ethics that actually mean
> something. i have compassion and feel for others.

Right.
So why do you make fun of people who share their experiences with
mental health problems, you piece of shit?

> even if it was worth
> the time taking this to the police i would not as no physical harm
> will come of it. it is just a down right rotten act from you guys. it
> can have negative effects and i guess this is why it is illegal.

You guess wrong because it ain't, otherwise impersonators would not be
allowed to do stage shows or produce TV shows, idiot.

> it is better to prevent this from happening before it gets out of
> hand. Trog69 was the first and the mods let it slide, then A42 picked
> up on this

Sorry, but no.

I did it all on my own.
Maybe Trog69 posted his before mine, but I was unaware of it at the
time (It was in a different thread).

> and then you. if every one gets on the wagon it will get
> real bad. is this what we want. is this what the moderators want? they
> are slack in performing their duties as they are preoccupied with
> their bias activities and don't see the fire spreading. this is my
> deal and yes, Rap is on his knees blowing the fire with this and the
> spam. he is giving his OK in both until a theist does it.

chx
Poor lonesome me!
All alone in a big bad world!!!
I be able to show them who is the idiot! har
________________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:21 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:57 AM, mag <magnusrawstron@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
> the rapture has begun, or second coming, whatever you want to call
> that part of most religions. Atheists only ever discuss the parts of
> manmade religion that are easy to dispell as untruths, they dont
> discuss the parts that baffle even the most intelligent professor.
> Atheists will go quieter than usual when they see the beginning of the
> end of this world, i know from past experience because at this present
> moment of time i have already convinced millions of people that i am
> christ, mahdi, second coming, messiah, maitreya, The buddha, whatever
> you want to call that person as mentioned in most religions i am that
> guy. I and spirit like to use the title of, The New Key To
> Enlightenment For All Atheists. People only have to pass me in the
> street to find evidence and experience of my telepathic capabilities
> but if i were to in this website give you the address of my online
> free view to book and telepathic challenge id be banned from this site
> for spamming.
>

Okay. Prove it. Where's my kitty cat, Isis?

>
> On Dec 3, 12:43 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> > revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> > witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.
> >
>

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:22 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 12:42 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:07 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In my opinion, there aren't much to learn from the New Testament
> > > beside the words of Christ. The rest of the New Testament contains
> > > mainly Paul's teachings.
>
> > Even if Paul's teachings are not the same as Jesus' teachings, it
> > doesn't follow that there's nothing to be learned from them. Indeed,
> > it would be if Paul's teachings were a replica of Jesus' teachings
> > that there would be nothing to learn from them. Perhaps you mean that
> > whatever there is to learned from Paul's teachings, you don't find it
> > worth learning.
>
> I am questioning what I am reading because the Apostle Paul said that we
> would be judged on judgement day by HIS Gospel. So, I think it best to take
> Romans 10:9 as my salvation. Ephesians 1 as my present place and position,
> and Thessalonians as my homegoing.
> It all makes good sense when I do.

It makes more sense when you do what you say you're doing. You
honestly say you follow Paul and do follow Paul. Many Christians, on
the other hand, say they are follow Jesus but actually follow Paul.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly seated in the Whitehouse, America
will enter a new era of wholesome family entertainment and the Hollywood
pornographers will be claiming unemployment
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e6ee90a2ad693f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:27 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, simonsaysbye <tahtah4now@live.co.uk> wrote:

>
> You posted this about a week ago, but I have only just stumbled across
> it; I do not systematically read through all that is posted in this
> forum (my bad). I don't know what psychological devices you are
> employing to justify posting in this way, but to me it demonstrates a
> singlular failure to understand the fundamentals that ground what I
> consider to be a Christian morality; for example that regardless of
> utility each person has equal value, and that no one is beyond
> redemption.
>
> In any case, it is moral illogical to criticise immorality in a form
> that exemplifies the immorality in question: to castigate someone as a
> 'vehicle of hate' in this way makes yourself a vehicle of hate. Your
> post both graceless and illogical, which is about as bad as it gets.
>
>
I agree with Turner. Thank you Simon for (as usual) being the only theist on
this site who is consistent in his condemnation of bad theist behavior.

>
>
> On Nov 30, 3:44 pm, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > On 30 Nov, 12:23, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Listen, take your love for Michael Douglas elsewhere.
> >
> > > On Nov 30, 4:31 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > > > When I go to the movies I want to be entertained. I don't want to see
> > > > Michael Douglas's aging erection. I am not a prude, but there is a
> > > > time and a place for everything, and the place for Michael Douglas's
> > > > penis is in his boxer shorts, not blown up to ludicrous proportions
> in
> > > > a movie theater. It was bad enough having to look at his flabby
> > > > buttocks in "Basic Instinct".
> >
> > > > As if that wasn't bad enough, I predict that the ongoing pornoization
> > > > of Hollywood movies will lead to more expensive movie tickets, as the
> >
> > Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan's cock,
> > YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND FIRMLY
> > INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> > FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> > DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED MIND.
> > YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> > REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> > UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
> >
> > > > big stars demand extra 'nudity money' to compensate them for
> > > > participating in the variety of depraved acts the perverted directors
> > > > dream up. After all, if full blown intercourse is allowed past the
> > > > censors, what next ? Teabagging ? Bagpiping ? Felching ? I don't even
> > > > want to think about it.
> >
> > > > Before the moral collapse brought on by the liberal anything goes
> > > > 'free love' culture of the sixties, America's movies were governed by
> > > > something called the Hays Code. Amongst other things, this very fine
> > > > set of rules protected our children by mandating that certain levels
> > > > of decency prevailed on our screens. Here are some extracts to give
> > > > you an idea of the moral strength of the code:
> >
> > > > # Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive
> postures
> > > > and gestures, are not to be shown.
> >
> > > > # Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus,
> Christ
> > > > - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other
> > > > profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.
> >
> > > > # No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
> >
> > > > # The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
> >
> > > > # Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.
> >
> > > > Nowadays, modern cinematographers seem to take the Hays code, and
> > > > invert it. They don't feel as if their movie is complete, unless it
> > > > has scenes of impure love, disrespect for the flag, and blasphemy.
> > > > This sorry state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
> >
> > > > In conclusion, this increasing permissiveness will cause movie ticket
> > > > prices to rise, and you may be forced to view Michael Douglas's erect
> > > > penis enlarged until it is 10 meters long. Now you can understand why
> > > > the Hays code must be ressurected. Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly
> > > > seated in the Whitehouse, America will enter a new era of wholesome
> > > > family entertainment and the Hollywood pornographers will be claiming
> > > > unemployment
> >
>

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:33 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Bob Crowley <bobcrowley@acenet.net.au>wrote:

>
> Which Catholic Church do you play your bingo in?

It's secular Bingo :-)

>
>
> On Dec 3, 9:38 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
> >
> > I agree. Brother Hayes should not be mocking our illustrious Max who is
> > devoted to and has entered the world of Christ.
> >
> > Such mockery should not be tolerated.
> >
> > I'm fresh out of sheckles though and Tuesday is Bingo night.
> >
> > :-(
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
> >
> > > More God & more Head
> >
> > > In thy mercy
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > > that
> > > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact,
> I
> > > would
> > > > probably think he was.
> >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so
> we
> > > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > > again.
> >
> > > > > Clear....Good!
> >
> > > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
> >
> > > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian.
> There
> > > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there
> was
> > > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and
> animals
> > > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only
> plants."
> >
> > > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > > need.
> >
> > > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
> >
> > > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:35 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:

> Aw, man! I always get gored, though!

It's better than flagellation.... unless of course you're into that sort of
thing ...

>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:15 AM, trog69 <tom.trog69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You shall go out back to the corral, and help repair the triceratops'
>> harnesses and halters. Mercy!
>>
>> On Dec 3, 8:02 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You're right. My behavior was unbecoming of a Servant of Christ. What
>> shall
>> > I do to make amends to Our Lord and Savior?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
>> > > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
>> > > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
>> > > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
>> > > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
>> > > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
>> > > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>> >
>> > > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>> >
>> > > More God & more Head
>> >
>> > > In thy mercy
>> >
>> > > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
>> > > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point
>> is
>> > > that
>> > > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact,
>> I
>> > > would
>> > > > probably think he was.
>> >
>> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle
>> their
>> > > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers,
>> so we
>> > > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
>> > > > > again.
>> >
>> > > > > Clear....Good!
>> >
>> > > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
>> > > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
>> > > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they
>> found
>> > > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>> >
>> > > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
>> > > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian.
>> There
>> > > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there
>> was
>> > > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and
>> animals
>> > > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only
>> plants."
>> >
>> > > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
>> > > > > need.
>> >
>> > > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>> >
>> > > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
>>
>>
>
> >
>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:37 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> Speak not of this Max oh Sister T......he has but flagellated himself
> mercilessly for crimes against the brethren and the lesser beings, our
> parishoners. Proofs have been found that he (and god save me for
> uttering these sinful words), has massaged the bottoms and (god
> forbid) the 'jiggly bits' of some of our our parishioners (just the
> naughty ones mind you) under the guise of assisting them with prayer.
> Lord knows the number of bottoms and bits he hath nestled, but fear
> not Sister T. We have dealt with him in an appropriate and usual
> manner.
>
> We spake with the Bishop & our grace believes that a transfer to a
> little church somewhere out of sight, plus a stipend indexed to around
> 7% p.a. may just do the trick. No pesky little men with cameras needed
> really is there.

Okay well I'm still fresh out of sheckles and bingo night ... well ... bingo
night just keeps changing.

But hey I'm praying all the time... ;-)

>
>
> Get God in your head
>
> More God & more Head
>
> In thy mercy
>
> On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
> >
> > I agree. Brother Hayes should not be mocking our illustrious Max who is
> > devoted to and has entered the world of Christ.
> >
> > Such mockery should not be tolerated.
> >
> > I'm fresh out of sheckles though and Tuesday is Bingo night.
> >
> > :-(
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
> >
> > > More God & more Head
> >
> > > In thy mercy
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > > that
> > > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact,
> I
> > > would
> > > > probably think he was.
> >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so
> we
> > > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > > again.
> >
> > > > > Clear....Good!
> >
> > > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
> >
> > > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian.
> There
> > > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there
> was
> > > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and
> animals
> > > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only
> plants."
> >
> > > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > > need.
> >
> > > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
> >
> > > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/544ee5e2660c0f01?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:34 pm
From: philosophy

Chris has an aversion against commies.
He doesn't see the communism in the Bible, however.

On Nov 26, 11:59 am, watts <watts....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Relevance?
>
> On Nov 26, 3:38 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Eris, are you commie?
>
> > On Nov 25, 5:11 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Russians invaded Afghanistan to break the stranglehold the
> > > religious extremist had over the general population. They built
> > > schools, roads, hospitals, and provided jobs for the Afghans, all was
> > > good. Then the Russians allowed women to dress shamelessly, attend
> > > school!, and work outside the home. This was more than the Muslim
> > > people of faith could bear. They fought back. Our people of faith who
> > > hated the Russians as part of their Christian dogma, without finding
> > > out all of facts aided the Muslim people of faith, who drove out the
> > > hated Russians.
>
> > > Now we have invaded Afghanistan and are trying to drive out the same
> > > religious extremist that have the same stranglehold on the Afghan
> > > people that the Russians were trying to drive out. We are known as
> > > the
> > > Great Satan in the Muslim world and aid to the Muslim people of faith
> > > is pouring in.
>
> > > Why didn't we just let the Russians do the right thing?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:54 pm
From: Eris

what's his issue with varmints he like to wrap them in gray tape?
On Dec 3, 6:34 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Chris has an aversion against commies.
> He doesn't see the communism in the Bible, however.
>
> On Nov 26, 11:59 am, watts <watts....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Relevance?
>
> > On Nov 26, 3:38 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eris, are you commie?
>
> > > On Nov 25, 5:11 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Russians invaded Afghanistan to break the stranglehold the
> > > > religious extremist had over the general population. They built
> > > > schools, roads, hospitals, and provided jobs for the Afghans, all was
> > > > good. Then the Russians allowed women to dress shamelessly, attend
> > > > school!, and work outside the home. This was more than the Muslim
> > > > people of faith could bear. They fought back. Our people of faith who
> > > > hated the Russians as part of their Christian dogma, without finding
> > > > out all of facts aided the Muslim people of faith, who drove out the
> > > > hated Russians.
>
> > > > Now we have invaded Afghanistan and are trying to drive out the same
> > > > religious extremist that have the same stranglehold on the Afghan
> > > > people that the Russians were trying to drive out. We are known as
> > > > the
> > > > Great Satan in the Muslim world and aid to the Muslim people of faith
> > > > is pouring in.
>
> > > > Why didn't we just let the Russians do the right thing?

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:56 pm
From: philosophy

Fair comment chx, except from a practical point of view,
if this individual is doing what he says he's doing, one has
to really wonder (with all due respect to all on AvC) why this
group rates so highly with him, for him to make it such a
priority in his life, to bring it up wherever in the world he goes.
I must say, I would be doing other things!!

On Dec 3, 9:10 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:24 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Dev
> > If this wo/man is using all this technology, I, as an ignoramus
> > in such things, has to ask "Why?" Why is this person finding it
> > necessary to use these things? For what purpose is s/he using
> > it? I think it is all so unnecessary. However, if they are using it
> > for their own sick purposes, then the spirit of this group is
> > compromised, and s/he should go.
>
> chx
> i am no expert in this tech. but if i should post from a webcafe in
> Cape Town today. fly to NY and post from there. then fly to Boston and
> post from a webcafe there. will the IP not change every time. LZ did
> say he will be all over.
>
> the person who mentioned this thingy was only Dev and now you assume
> LZ is using it. but what confuses me more is you. you talk about 'this
> person' then jump to 'if they' and end with 's/he'. i'd say you tried
> to implicate ALL theists with this style of writing (sic)
>
> how can you ban someone because some other dude _thinks_ another may
> be using a gadget? this was not confirmed in any way.
>
> it sounds like the aheists are thinking up all sorts of ydeas to ban
> theists when they ignore atheists breaking rules. if you really want
> an atheists only group, why not start one then?
>
> this group is losing or lost it's spirit 3 months ago with BIAS
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 6:10 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > This post is a practical admission, beyond any reasonable doubt, that
> > > LedZepp is using an IP anonymizer. If you have been following his
> > > recent posts in which he emphasized different IP addresses as "proof"
> > > that Wanderer, Liam and LedZepp are not all one, it's especially
> > > obvious here that he's just thumbing his nose at the high standards
> > > generally required to ban a regular from AvC, all the while trying to
> > > disingenuously make this out as a witchhunt against theists. Liam
> > > would have been fine if he had learned his lesson about posting
> > > private information the first time he was banned, as Wanderer.
>
> > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to make a judgment call here, but I'm
> > > going to get some input here: who thinks LedZepp should be able to get
> > > away with whatever he wants while practically admitting what he's
> > > doing just because he has an IP anonymizer? Who thinks LedZepp should
> > > be _banned_, and anyone else we have good reason to think is Liam
> > > should be banned?
>
> > > On Nov 27, 12:37 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I will be moving around the world, basically Germany, Canada and all
> > > > over the United States. My IP will be changing constantly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Peter Parker
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/dfb77186035b2555?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:01 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 16:41, Penfold <c...@quickbuilds.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> >> As an engineer when I examine nature I see clear evidence of design.
> >Really? Provide some of that evidence.
>
> All evidence has to be interpreted so that conclusions can be drawn
> from the observations are made. I suspect that whatever conclusions I
> may draw others could disagree. But since you ask here's one:
>
> DNA/RNA is the basis for all known life. It is very complex and has to
> interact perfectly to work. It is a mathematical impossibility that
> any amount of amino acids and lightning acting in an uncontrolled way
> over however millions of years could produce functioning DNA/RNA.

Well, see what I was writing about wilful ignorance?
Scientists do not posit that DNA/RNA came about that way.
You have been reading to many creationist tracts.

> > you are deluding yourself because you are ignoring some facts
>
> An example? One will do for starters.

See above, and below.

> > What makes you think that a 2,000 year old book has any relevance today?
>
> It tells us where we came from,

No, it does not.

> why everything is so messed up,

What does that even mean?

> what
> the solution is,

If the previous statement does not make sense, how can you get a
solution to a meaningless problem?

> and what we need to do to benefit from it. I avoid a
> great deal of bother by applying the lessons recorded for us. It was
> written a long time ago, but the human condition and our creator has
> not changed since then.

The human condition has not changed since then?
More of that wilful ignorance I was speaking of.

> > Are you claiming that without that book you would not be able to live a good fruitful life?
>
> My life has been greatly enhanced by the peace of mind from not having
> to worry about what the future holds,

I feel exactly like you do.
No god though!

> not having to worry about fixing
> this world,

This is a good example of why religion can be bad.
Do you think that sitting by and not doing anything will really solve
the problems we face?

> knowing the best way to live, what I ought to be doing
> with my life.

I do know those things, no god though!

> >> a higher source of wisdom found in the Bible
> >Such as?
>
> The sanitation laws given to the Jews in the Mosaic law. Effective
> methods of avoiding unnecessary disease in the camp. This was long
> before the basics germs and infection were understood. It was a
> standard of cleanliness way in advance of the surrounding nations of
> the time.

Specific verses please.

> > You mean after you ignore the thousands of errors/contradictions/ aberrations?
>
> Such as?

For starters:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

> >> the many prophecies that have come true
> >Such as?
>
> The detailed description of the fall of Babylon in the book of Isaiah,
> written some 200 year in advance.

Prove it was indeed written 200 years in advance.

> Correctly foretold what nations, how
> they'd do it, that it would fall without a fight, even named Cyrus.

Prove this with date of authorship and verses.
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Congratulations
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/d322fa2af711303a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:02 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:16 AM, ObservantEye <mike.shull@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Read on. I've already pretty much responded to most of your
> objections. Believe it or not, I even retracted. I even found people
> willing to discuss rather than just cuss. (ain't I clever?)

The jury is still out on that one ;-)

>
>
> On Dec 2, 8:13 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> >
> > Preconceived notions noted.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > atheist into a flame war.
> >
> > Somewhat arrogant for a newbie. Care to provide evidence that 99% of the
> > atheists on this and other groups are "angry" people?
> >
> > > There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it.
> >
> > Then, frankly why are you here?
> >
> > I have never been able to figure out why people go to the trouble of
> joining
> > this group just so that they can insult it in their first post.
> >
> > Personally, if I felt that way about a group. I'd just move on.
> >
> > Feel free to explain.
> >
> > > These
> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades.
> >
> > Haha. This one is quite hysterical. Let me give you an example (apologies
> if
> > someone beat to me to it.) of a Christian post :-). I have tons more.
> This
> > site is full of examples like the following:
> >
> > May I introduce you to Manny (I affectionately call him Daffy :-)
> >
> > http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/5c76f806715...
> >
> > On Oct 29, 6:45 pm, manny <daf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well did you enjoy it? if not, why don't you try to do it with your
> > > sister, cause for you it's normal,
> > > and then when you finish with her, try your brother ask for a blow job
> > > from him. How do you like that, my level
> > > enjoy it. I know you are not atheist you're a Jew, how hate jesus,
> > > just like your encester before you HAHAHAHAHAH
> > > and how about that old women, isn't this fun? you're defending a
> > > Jew..
> >
> > The picture
> >
> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> >
> > It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.
> >
> > And if you bothered to actually read the site for a while before jumping
> in
> > with these clearly unwarranted conclusions you would have seen that most
> > atheists are quite willing to and have intelligent discussion with those
> > theists who wish to. There are far more theist trolls on this site than
> > there are atheist ones. And they get exactly what they ask for.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > > agnostics.
> >
> > Did you ever ask them what the definition of an atheist/agnostic was
> because
> > you're sentence indicates that you don't know.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> >
> > Maybe you should try to get the facts first before jumping to these very
> > silly conclusions of yours.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> >
> > If that's what you believe then why would you even consider joining our
> > group.
> >
> > Perhaps this is the wrong place for you.
> >
> > This kind of arrogance usually does get shot down so you shouldn't be
> > surprised by the reaction you've already received.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> >
> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
> >
> > Again, Why are you here flaming us then?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A N S W E R - M E ! ! ! - THE ACTUAL BAD ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
SITUATION AROUND THE WORLD is the begining of the END of The WORLD ? ? ? ? ?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/063e4e98eabc4942?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:08 pm
From: philosophy

Oh, you really are a shit stirrer, aren't you?
I hope you get some satisfaction from hating so many people.
The only armagedon will happen many years in the future, if
and when the universe finally contracts in on itself!

On Dec 3, 9:13 am, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
> BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
>
> With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:
> - Psalm: 37: 9,10,29; Mathew 5:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=salm%2037:%209,10,29;%20m...
>
> Barack Hussein Obama ( is that a christian name or what ? ) is a false
> christian. He is a muslim from Islam, and he is a socialist trained by
> Fidel Castro and partners from Internacional Socialism. He is a Jew
> Zionist luxury member too.
>
> >>>>>> USE THE GOOGLE TRANSLATOR, IS FREE, <<<<<<
>
> You can translate some words or a total web page:http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=es#
> Use a separate tab or another window to translate any thing in many
> languages.
>
> The Zionists are a sect or cult from Israel.
>
> The sect of the Zionists will be destroyed according to the
> prophecies:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaias%201;&version=31;
>
> Judaism has failed in bringing peace and security to the rest of the
> world. Christianity was established as the only hope for mankind.
> Laws, mandates and councils in the New Testament of the Holy Bible can
> change the behavior of millions to live better, in peace and
> harmony ...
>
> http://es.geocities.com/eleazarcarvajal/sionismo.html
>
> If not open, click here:
>
> http://religion-politica.googlegroups.com/web/sionismo.htm
>
> GREAT DESTRUCTION approaches, bad religions and evil sects or cults
> are involved.
> The Vatican, in Rome, will be destroyed first .... and after...
> ¡ BUUUM !, The Armagedon War begins ! ! ! !
>
> Read about the dirty war that the narco-terrorist regime of the jew
> Fidel Castro directed against the population of America and the rest
> of the world that is NOT a socialist (red communist atheist):
>
> Use the google translator; is an emergency:http://mipagina.univision.com/alien777
>
> Visit some times this link with secret info that you never saw:
>
> http://group.google.com/group/religion-politica/topics

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:13 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 3, 12:52 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:02 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:41 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 3:13 pm, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
>
> > > > BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
>
> > > > With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> > > > thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> > > > be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> > > > only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> > > > Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:
>
> > > YES! ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!! RUN!!!!!
>
> > > But before you do, it is best that you send your earthly belongings
> > > and financial assets to the AvC Armaggedon Fund (Atheist Division) for
> > > Post-Armaggedon safekeeping.
>
> > Where do I sign up to be an administrator for these funds?
>
> Very interesting theory. Seems no one has taken the time to read
> Revelations with an eye as to what type of weapons they are talking about.
> Horses????
> The only way they would have to fight a war with horses, would be if the
> *oil* ran out!!!

Well, actually, lots of atheists have read Revelation, and find the
part about going to war with horses just another nail in the coffin of
your religious beliefs. Glad you see the absurdity of this; when are
you going to become an atheist?

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity"
group.

To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

Atheism vs Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:12 pm
From: Penfold

ynot,

A child has a horrible painful disease. Which would be the more
monstrous father, the one that resorts to euthanasia to immediately
stop the suffering, or the one that allows the child to endure a
painful operation in the knowledge that they will be completely cured
and go on to have a long and happy future?

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:23 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 12:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> > The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
> > place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?
>
> I understand the definition of air. I understand the definition of
> God. Kindly define for me this word Asherah.

Glean a definition from this:

Though all three ancient Levantine great goddesses appear in the
Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, Asherah occurs most often:
forty times in nine books. The biblical texts are hostile witnesses,
for they either vilify the goddess or, more often, obliterate her
grammatically, for instance, by referring to her in the masculine
plural as "the asherahs." Until the Ugaritic tablets were deciphered
beginning in the 1930s, most scholars did not even speculate that "the
asherahs" might be obscuring a goddess(Hadley 2000:4). They
interpreted "the asherahs" as either wooden poles, cult objects from
Baal worship, or groves of trees. Only a brave few claimed that "the
asherahs" referred to a goddess citing such passages as I Kings 18, in
which "prophets of Asherah"(1) served Queen Jezebel(Binger 1997:111;
Yamashita 1963:126). The first detailed study of Asherah in the Hebrew
Bible after the Ugaritic discoveries concluded that "the asherah"
represented both a wooden cult object and a goddess (Reed 1949:37,
53), a position some scholars still hold today.

Unquestionably, "the asherahs" were usually wooden; they stood
upright, often beside altars, along with stone pillars. However, in at
least eight instances, they are described as carved(Pettey 1990:45).
Thus, far from being merely wooden "cult poles," they were probably
quite large carved images. As was the case with cult statues in other
areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, "the asherahs" almost certainly
would have been "animated" ritually (Walker and Dick 1999:57). Thus
they did not just represent the goddess, but actually were worshipped
as Asherah herself. Further, according to the Bible, a statue of
Asherah stood in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem for about two-
thirds of its existence (Patai 1990:50). Asherah "must, then, have
been a legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh" (Olyan 1988:13).

The Hebrew Scriptures regularly pair Asherah's name, especially "the
asherahs," with Baal's, so that some scholars have wondered whether
Asherah had ousted Astarte as Baal's consort. In 1963 Yamashita noted
that most of the references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, including
those pairing Asherah with Baal, were associated with only one source
(1963:123-137). Later, Olyan argued very convincingly that the
biblical attacks on Asherah were "restricted to the Deuteronomistic
History"(2) and to texts exhibiting Deuteronomistic influence. For
instance, the numerous pairings of Baal with Asherah's "cult symbol,"
called "the asherah," are part of a reformist, monotheistic "anti-
asherah polemic" aimed at discrediting "the asherah" by associating it
with Baal and Astarte (Olyan 1988: 1, 3, 13-14). This polemic was
necessary because Asherah "had some role in the cult of Yahweh … not
only in popular Yahwism, but in the official cult as well" (Olyan
1988:74).

In addition to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, there is also
considerable archaeological evidence that may throw light on the role
of Asherah in the religion of the early Israelites. First, a
considerable number of small, clay, female statuettes, which
archaeologists usually call "pillar figurines," have been unearthed
all over Israel. Dating to the eighth and early seventh centuries,
that is, to the height of the Israelite monarchy, they occur in almost
every excavation of the period (Kletter 1996: 4, 40-41).(3) So many
pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that
they are often regarded as "a characteristic expression of Judahite
piety" (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:327; Kletter 1996:45).

Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).

http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:28 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

C) The one who immediately removes the disease and stops the suffering so
that the child's long and happy future can start right away.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Penfold <com@quickbuilds.co.uk> wrote:

>
> ynot,
>
> A child has a horrible painful disease. Which would be the more
> monstrous father, the one that resorts to euthanasia to immediately
> stop the suffering, or the one that allows the child to endure a
> painful operation in the knowledge that they will be completely cured
> and go on to have a long and happy future?
> >
>

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:40 pm
From: Joe

Has nothing to do with me or my actions.

On Dec 3, 5:08 pm, ynot <ynotamil2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 4:23 pm, ynot <ynotamil2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All just different names. It is like saying I breathe air while you
> > breathe atmosphere and someone else breathes oxygen and other gases.
>
> Why are you so hypocrit?
> Chistians kill muslins, catholics kill protestants, muslins kill
> hindus,
> christians kill CHRISTIANS ORTHODOX, just because all are one
> god with a different name?
> All that killing in the name of god!
> Not gold, nor silver or oil: in the name of G O D.
>
> ynot

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:42 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 17:11, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> looks all nice and shiny in your minds. You remind me of those kids
> back in the 80's who used to sit around all day and night playing
> dungeons and dragons. What fun to bandy about with magical wizardry
> powers constrained only on their ability to think. Every time you get
> into a jam, whip out a magic spell and poof. All because you could

Blasphemy!

Fireball! (I take out my guano.)

<Damned, where are those 5 6d dice?>
___________________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:43 pm
From: Joe

So essentially, Asherahs are pieces of wood. Should we worship a
piece of wood? Even if someone claims to receive prophecy from their
piece of wood?

On Dec 3, 5:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> > > The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
> > > place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?
>
> > I understand the definition of air. I understand the definition of
> > God. Kindly define for me this word Asherah.
>
> Glean a definition from this:
>
> Though all three ancient Levantine great goddesses appear in the
> Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, Asherah occurs most often:
> forty times in nine books. The biblical texts are hostile witnesses,
> for they either vilify the goddess or, more often, obliterate her
> grammatically, for instance, by referring to her in the masculine
> plural as "the asherahs." Until the Ugaritic tablets were deciphered
> beginning in the 1930s, most scholars did not even speculate that "the
> asherahs" might be obscuring a goddess(Hadley 2000:4). They
> interpreted "the asherahs" as either wooden poles, cult objects from
> Baal worship, or groves of trees. Only a brave few claimed that "the
> asherahs" referred to a goddess citing such passages as I Kings 18, in
> which "prophets of Asherah"(1) served Queen Jezebel(Binger 1997:111;
> Yamashita 1963:126). The first detailed study of Asherah in the Hebrew
> Bible after the Ugaritic discoveries concluded that "the asherah"
> represented both a wooden cult object and a goddess (Reed 1949:37,
> 53), a position some scholars still hold today.
>
> Unquestionably, "the asherahs" were usually wooden; they stood
> upright, often beside altars, along with stone pillars. However, in at
> least eight instances, they are described as carved(Pettey 1990:45).
> Thus, far from being merely wooden "cult poles," they were probably
> quite large carved images. As was the case with cult statues in other
> areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, "the asherahs" almost certainly
> would have been "animated" ritually (Walker and Dick 1999:57). Thus
> they did not just represent the goddess, but actually were worshipped
> as Asherah herself. Further, according to the Bible, a statue of
> Asherah stood in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem for about two-
> thirds of its existence (Patai 1990:50). Asherah "must, then, have
> been a legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh" (Olyan 1988:13).
>
> The Hebrew Scriptures regularly pair Asherah's name, especially "the
> asherahs," with Baal's, so that some scholars have wondered whether
> Asherah had ousted Astarte as Baal's consort. In 1963 Yamashita noted
> that most of the references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, including
> those pairing Asherah with Baal, were associated with only one source
> (1963:123-137). Later, Olyan argued very convincingly that the
> biblical attacks on Asherah were "restricted to the Deuteronomistic
> History"(2) and to texts exhibiting Deuteronomistic influence. For
> instance, the numerous pairings of Baal with Asherah's "cult symbol,"
> called "the asherah," are part of a reformist, monotheistic "anti-
> asherah polemic" aimed at discrediting "the asherah" by associating it
> with Baal and Astarte (Olyan 1988: 1, 3, 13-14). This polemic was
> necessary because Asherah "had some role in the cult of Yahweh … not
> only in popular Yahwism, but in the official cult as well" (Olyan
> 1988:74).
>
> In addition to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, there is also
> considerable archaeological evidence that may throw light on the role
> of Asherah in the religion of the early Israelites. First, a
> considerable number of small, clay, female statuettes, which
> archaeologists usually call "pillar figurines," have been unearthed
> all over Israel. Dating to the eighth and early seventh centuries,
> that is, to the height of the Israelite monarchy, they occur in almost
> every excavation of the period (Kletter 1996: 4, 40-41).(3) So many
> pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that
> they are often regarded as "a characteristic expression of Judahite
> piety" (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:327; Kletter 1996:45).
>
> Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:14 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 11:55 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 11:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> > > and yet be so backwards.
>
> > > Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> > > Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> > > sense I should thank them. :)-
>
> > That's a provocative statement...what sort of things did they do that
> > turned you off?
>
> - Made fun of scientists on a regular basis, saying that they aren't
> moral or ethical.

Did they have no parishioners who were scientists?

> - Pretended there was a moral decline in America, of course
> perpetrated by the atheists.

If moral values that they hold dear are successfully opposed, they
would naturally think that who ever opposes them are perpetrating
moral decline. Why do you think they pretend to think so?

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:15 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Medusa <Medusa4303@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> ObservantEye wrote:
>
> > Well, I can say without a doubt that at least that is getting better
> > for atheists. I know what it was like 30 years ago and you don't have
> > the personal crusaders beating your door down and I haven't seen
> > someone handing out religious literature at every store you go to near
> > as much as back then. Of course the times were different then, too,
> > such a short while ago.
>
> They're still out there, at least where I live. I usually don't
> amswer the door if I don't know who is out there. But I still get
> caught sometimes.
>
> > Of course, you have to agree with some of it. I mean, do you
> > seriously think no one should push for a law you're against?
>
> Of course not. And I do fight for what I believe should be a law or
> stay a law.
>
> > This is
> > democracy at it's best. Times have definitely changed enough that you
> > can try to banish any reminder of any Christian's faith, like
> > christmas trees, the ten commandments, etc. However, you don't see
> > the same language used against Islam, or any other sects, for fear of
> > being called a hate-monger. Any idea what that's about? Remember,
> > I'm observing and asking if anyone knows the answers, not disagreeing
> > with you or fighting you.
>
> I don't see people out there trying to convert me to Islam. though I
> did read just the other day about Google having a battle with an
> Islamic country. The country does not want anything that they don't
> like available anywhere in the world. So far, Google has not backed
> down.

Really? Way to go Google! Far too many times, our societies have capitulated
to offended Muslims. Do you have any links?

>
>
> My greatest fear of some religious sects is that their members are
> willing to die while attacking 'nonbelievers."
>
> IMO, the world has gotten scarier. Or maybe I'm just noticing it
> more.
>
> Medusa
>
> >
>

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:16 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see
> that
> > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
> >
> > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
> >
> > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> according
> > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> now,
> > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense
> of
> > > > the term.
> >
> > > chx
> > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > ***
> > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > chx
> > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
> >
> > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't
> even
> > > > be aware of it.
> >
> > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > and it would be serious.
> > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > that it was from me.
> >
> > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
> >
> > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > _________________________________
> > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > ***
> >
> > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
> >
> > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should
> be
> > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > This must be treason.
> > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
> >
> > > chx
> > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
> >
> > > > > and now selling
> > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
> >
> > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
> >
> > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
> >
> > > chx
> > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > name above your deceiving messages.
> >
> > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report
> us.
>
> chx
> why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?

Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
happen again, rest assured.

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > ***
> > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
> >
> > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > them which is what you did in this post.
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> ..
> >
> > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > illegal.
> >
> > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > understand.
> > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > ***
> >
> > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:34 pm
From: checkers

On Dec 4, 12:16 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see
> > that
> > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > according
> > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > now,
> > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense
> > of
> > > > > the term.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> > > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't
> > even
> > > > > be aware of it.
>
> > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > > that it was from me.
>
> > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > ***
>
> > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should
> > be
> > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > > chx
> > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report
> > us.
>
> > chx
> > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
> Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> happen again, rest assured.

chx
no, you don't get it, i have morals and ethics that actually mean
something. i have compassion and feel for others. even if it was worth
the time taking this to the police i would not as no physical harm
will come of it. it is just a down right rotten act from you guys. it
can have negative effects and i guess this is why it is illegal.

it is better to prevent this from happening before it gets out of
hand. Trog69 was the first and the mods let it slide, then A42 picked
up on this and then you. if every one gets on the wagon it will get
real bad. is this what we want. is this what the moderators want? they
are slack in performing their duties as they are preoccupied with
their bias activities and don't see the fire spreading. this is my
deal and yes, Rap is on his knees blowing the fire with this and the
spam. he is giving his OK in both until a theist does it.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
>
> > > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > > them which is what you did in this post.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> > ..
>
> > > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > > illegal.
>
> > > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > > understand.
> > > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > > ***
>
> > > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:36 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 2:34 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 12:16 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see
> > > that
> > > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > > according
> > > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > > now,
> > > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense
> > > of
> > > > > > the term.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > > ***
> > > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> > > > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't
> > > even
> > > > > > be aware of it.
>
> > > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > > > that it was from me.
>
> > > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should
> > > be
> > > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report
> > > us.
>
> > > chx
> > > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
> > Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> > happen again, rest assured.
>
> chx
> no, you don't get it, i have morals and ethics that actually mean
> something.
Prove it Christian

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Richard Dawkins PROOVES Many Christians are hypocrites just by babies
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/4f094650ef116536?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:18 pm
From: checkers

chx
wow, is this woody or woody's daddy...or is it cut-n-paste?

On Dec 3, 8:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> Many Christians are hypocrites.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:18 pm
From: checkers

ok, this is woody again

On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> > >http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > Many Christians are hypocrites.
>
> > Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> > hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
>
> Prove it- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:23 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 2:18 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> wow, is this woody or woody's daddy...or is it cut-n-paste?
>
wow, is this checkers or checker's mommy...or is it Christian
hypocrisy?
> On Dec 3, 8:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> >http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > Many Christians are hypocrites.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:24 pm
From: Woodbridge

ok, this is checkers again

On Dec 3, 2:18 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> ok, this is woody again
>
> On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
> > > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> > > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> > > >http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> > > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > > Many Christians are hypocrites.
>
> > > Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> > > hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
>
> > Prove it- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:21 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Penfold <com@quickbuilds.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> > > Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
> >
> > There are many. For example, not contradicting yourself is not evidence
> of divine inspiration.
>
> Something like 40 different people from all different backgrounds,
> places and time physically wrote the words of the bible.

It's easy to be somewhat consistent with each other when you have the
others' books.

> That they
> don't contradict each other supports their claim that they were
> writing God's words not their own.

They most certainly contradict each other. Just look at the two creation
stories in Genesis, for one example.

Of course, if experience teaches us anything, it's that you are going to use
some cop-out, like "it's metaphorical".

Also, way to ignore my other comments and questions.

>
>
> Eye witnesses to the same event often contradict each other because
> their perceptions are coloured by their own personalities and
> fallibilities.
> >
>

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:22 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> On Dec 2, 5:13 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 7:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> book,
> > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> that
> > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> human
> > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> anyone--explain
> > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings
> are
> > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> order
> > > to
> > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > Okay. But for a truly nonviolent campaign to work, wouldn't that mean
> > > it worked with no threat of violence?
> >
> > And many have. That doesn't mean that violence didn't occur but violence
> was
> > not the strategy.
> >
> > For example, the Protest Movement of the 1960s started having sit-ins,
> > bed-ins (Lennon) and be-ins (Vancouver/Frisco).
> >
> > These were peaceful protests.
>
> Yes, but the point of the author is that the apparent effects of these
> were contingent on non-pacifistic associations.
>
> > That didn't stop the police from charging in with billy clubs to drag
> off,
> > arrest protestors and charge the protesters with "assault".
>
> You seem to contradict yourself with this. Let me state again: by
> saying nonviolence did not make certain movements work, I am by no
> means _defending_ the cocksuckers. Read the title of this thread
> again.
>
> > > The three (and only three,
> > > versus like thousands of major historical examples where violence
> > > works) examples of whether nonviolence works exclusively all have, I
> > > think, substantial arguments that the "non-cooperation" encompassed
> > > riots and threats at the bare minimum, state force sometimes. So.
> > > Three disputable examples of nonviolence versus three-hundred-thousand
> > > of violence works, nonviolence wins?
> >
> > Numbers aren't the issue.
> >
> > This is a new strategy. It's one that was developed in the last century
> as
> > an alternative to violence and wars. So far, it's effect is being seen.
>
> No, it hasn't. It isn't substantiated, is the problem. We have three
> (3) examples--let's call them the "prototypes for the miracle of
> nonviolence"--and all of them are essentially defended with...oh,
> saying justified violence isn't actually violence and shit? Dubious,
> mythological examples that even neither you or Drafterman can really
> defend with facts that a third grader can divide into twelve versus
> the actual history of the entire human race.
>
> > We have to get better at it and more strategic about it instead of
> tossing
> > it out just because it hasn't proven to be perfect yet.
>
> Explain a non-violent strategy that you perceive as effective.
>
> > And we need brilliant young minds like yours to work on this problem, not
> to
> > dismiss it.
>
> How is pacifism different from creationism?
>
> > Violence as a strategy doesn't benefit anyone except, as I said before,
> in
> > Wars of Conquest.
>
> But...but facts and history and stuff, as opposed to hippie rock
> music!

Funny ;-)

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is
> of
> > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> proportion
> > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> more
> > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> existing
> > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War
> of
> > > > Conquest a success.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > It depends on what the goals are.
> >
> > > Trance, none of the "great nonviolent leaders" achieved anything
> > > historically without at least the threat of force behind them, and if
> > > they were sincere, then they failed because of it.
> >
> > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> problem,
> > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> >
> > > So you would argue that the minority of things in history that were
> > > accomplished against adversity were accomplished with violence or the
> > > threat of violence? Could you make, I dunno, lists to substantiate
> > > this with facts, counterarguments taken into account?
> >
> > > I hate being the bad guy with you, but goddamn. I think we have to
> > > start being realistic.
> >
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Let's go!
> >
> > > > > > Martin Luther King.
> >
> > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> >
> > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > > > companion.
> > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance
> Gemini,
> > > > > > Andromeda
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > companion.
> > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:29 pm
From: Multiverse

sorry max my focus has been poor at best. Trying to juggle to many
threads yesterday and all. I'll get to it after I get the kids to
bed.

On Dec 3, 4:54 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> your thoughts.
>
> Thanks Trance,
>
> But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
>
> "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
>
> No 'matey' myopia now :)
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > >to back his premise that
>
> > > Max,
> > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
>
> > Advice I agree with, Max.
>
> > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > to back his premise that
>
> > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > was all a set up.
>
> > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > greys, so it seems.
>
> > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > > divided us.
>
> > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > > strive for understanding.
>
> > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > > violence anyway.
>
> > > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > > what's right."
>
> > > > Max
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting
> > > Dev
> > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > didn't
> > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > > > violence eh!
>
> > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > > know is
> > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > > Max
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > > book,
> > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > > that
> > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > > link,
> > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why
> > > are
> > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples?
> > > Is
> > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > > no--
> > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > > human
> > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > > beings are
> > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> > > order
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion
> > > is of
> > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > proportion
> > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > > history?
> > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > > more
> > > > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > > existing
> > > > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a
> > > War of
> > > > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > > problem,
> > > > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its'
> > > constant
> > > > > > > > companion.
> > > > > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance
>
> ...
>
> re