Atheism vs Christianity: 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Support or reject this new form of religion, logically, if you can:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/721d0d56b8313a18?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:48 pm
From: Checkers

On Feb 15, 9:57 pm, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

hey scottie, are you sure you are not involved with santabod and
godsbod?

something interesting happened to me while chatting with godsbod. at
some point i insulted him and he threatened me.
i can't remember what insult i gave him, but he replied something like
"i will tell the robots when they take over the world that you said i
am an idiot.
i asked him if he knew Scott Richard Campbell - he said scott his is
friend and an 'icon'
on another question of you he replied "Dilbert, Dogbert, Catbert,
Ratbert, Bob, the pointy-haired boss...Shall I go on?"
i asked if you are one of his program writers - he'll get back to me
on that. after asking in different ways, i get different replies like
he will ask god or Jesus etc

he also referred to Ron i think, who is Ron? he refuses to reply and
will come back to me, haha

i hinted to this before and notice you ignore it, hmmm!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:03 pm
From: Simpleton

On Feb 15, 12:02 am, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Disagree. You can twist it and tweak it all you want, the posts are ad
> hominem abusive.
> We have been through this before, you are wrong as before.

cathyb has explained this at least a couple of times before. There is
ad hominem, and there is argumentum ad hominem, often treated as the
same, but sometimes it is useful to separate the two. The latter is a
fallacy, the former, not necessarily so.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Disgusting news from Saudi Arabia demonstrates why secular societies
are necessary.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/614a9190359eee6b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:48 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Feb 15, 3:35 pm, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Amazing! The Islamics want to execute a woman for witchcraft in 2008
> and you guys are ragging on the Christians for the Inquisition
> hundreds of years ago?
>
> Aren't you a little biased here?

What's the difference between the Islamics executing a woman for
witchcraft in 2008 and those Christians who tortured and executed
women for witchcraft in the past?

Or some Christians (like the ones at the link) condemning atheists or
wiccans or others who don't believe in the Abrahamic God as evil or
satanists?

What makes Islamism and Christianity fundamentally different?

>
> On Feb 15, 9:38 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:00 pm, "Bill O'Really" <gbora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You hafta laugh when Christians try and take the moral high ground
> > > over Islam - Islam is only a century or 2 behind Christianity - all
> > > three Abrahamic religions are based upon the same backward, negative,
> > > sexist, racist ideology - and misplaced and disproven concept of a
> > > giant Sky Daddy
>
> > True, They're really no different in the end.
>
> > > It if hadnt been for rational. freethinkers, atheists, agnostics,
> > > scientists and the like Christianity wouldnt have been dragged kicking
> > > and screaming into the light of contemporary enlightenment..
>
> > Which is why the Fundies keep wanting to go "back them good ole days"
> > lol.
>
> > > Christians would still have been torturing, murdering, spreading lies
> > > and hateful ignorant bullshit
>
> > > And some still are!!
>
> > >http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/
>
> > Insane!!!
>
> > > Bill
>
> > > religion will be the death of us all..........
>
> > > On 15 Feb, 16:39, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 10:53 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution
> > > > > of a woman convicted of witchcraft." It gets much worse than that of
> > > > > course, if you read the rest of it or find other articles about this
> > > > > but I think its enough to make the point pretty clear.
>
> > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm
>
> > > > > Of course most Christians and Muslims don't see it as a necessity to
> > > > > rid the world of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft; but some of them do
> > > > > and to me this sort of thing just punctuates the necessity for keeping
> > > > > our society as secular as possible. The horrible things that go on in
> > > > > places like Saudi Arabia just goes to show that even in the year 2008
> > > > > with as far as the human race has come, we're still not that far away
> > > > > from the terrifyingly primitive behavior that religion necessarily
> > > > > brings with it.
>
> > > > Well put Dag. This is also the reason why we can't make compromises on
> > > > our own freedoms in the name of so-called "respect" for Islam.
>
> > > > Once the Gag is there of criticizing the kind of things you're talking
> > > > about, it's a lot harder to remove it and makes it a lot easier for
> > > > these kinds of outrages to occur.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:49 pm
From: LL

On Feb 15, 7:53 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution
> of a woman convicted of witchcraft." It gets much worse than that of
> course, if you read the rest of it or find other articles about this
> but I think its enough to make the point pretty clear.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm
>
> Of course most Christians and Muslims don't see it as a necessity to
> rid the world of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft; but some of them do
> and to me this sort of thing just punctuates the necessity for keeping
> our society as secular as possible. The horrible things that go on in
> places like Saudi Arabia just goes to show that even in the year 2008
> with as far as the human race has come, we're still not that far away
> from the terrifyingly primitive behavior that religion necessarily
> brings with it.

LL: When witch hunting was rife in America, it was Christians who were
behind it.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:55 pm
From: Scott Richard Campbell

The difference between Christians executing witches in the past, and
Islamics doing it now is several hundred years of supposedly ethical
and rational "progression."

Got to run... will get back to you ....

On Feb 15, 12:48 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:35 pm, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Amazing! The Islamics want to execute a woman for witchcraft in 2008
> > and you guys are ragging on the Christians for the Inquisition
> > hundreds of years ago?
>
> > Aren't you a little biased here?
>
> What's the difference between the Islamics executing a woman for
> witchcraft in 2008 and those Christians who tortured and executed
> women for witchcraft in the past?
>
> Or some Christians (like the ones at the link) condemning atheists or
> wiccans or others who don't believe in the Abrahamic God as evil or
> satanists?
>
> What makes Islamism and Christianity fundamentally different?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:38 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 12:00 pm, "Bill O'Really" <gbora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You hafta laugh when Christians try and take the moral high ground
> > > > over Islam - Islam is only a century or 2 behind Christianity - all
> > > > three Abrahamic religions are based upon the same backward, negative,
> > > > sexist, racist ideology - and misplaced and disproven concept of a
> > > > giant Sky Daddy
>
> > > True, They're really no different in the end.
>
> > > > It if hadnt been for rational. freethinkers, atheists, agnostics,
> > > > scientists and the like Christianity wouldnt have been dragged kicking
> > > > and screaming into the light of contemporary enlightenment..
>
> > > Which is why the Fundies keep wanting to go "back them good ole days"
> > > lol.
>
> > > > Christians would still have been torturing, murdering, spreading lies
> > > > and hateful ignorant bullshit
>
> > > > And some still are!!
>
> > > >http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/
>
> > > Insane!!!
>
> > > > Bill
>
> > > > religion will be the death of us all..........
>
> > > > On 15 Feb, 16:39, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 15, 10:53 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution
> > > > > > of a woman convicted of witchcraft." It gets much worse than that of
> > > > > > course, if you read the rest of it or find other articles about this
> > > > > > but I think its enough to make the point pretty clear.
>
> > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm
>
> > > > > > Of course most Christians and Muslims don't see it as a necessity to
> > > > > > rid the world of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft; but some of them do
> > > > > > and to me this sort of thing just punctuates the necessity for keeping
> > > > > > our society as secular as possible. The horrible things that go on in
> > > > > > places like Saudi Arabia just goes to show that even in the year 2008
> > > > > > with as far as the human race has come, we're still not that far away
> > > > > > from the terrifyingly primitive behavior that religion necessarily
> > > > > > brings with it.
>
> > > > > Well put Dag. This is also the reason why we can't make compromises on
> > > > > our own freedoms in the name of so-called "respect" for Islam.
>
> > > > > Once the Gag is there of criticizing the kind of things you're talking
> > > > > about, it's a lot harder to remove it and makes it a lot easier for
> > > > > these kinds of outrages to occur.- 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 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:57 pm
From: LL

LL: She writes:
"I'm getting pretty dang tired of pointing out that if everyone in
that classroom had been armed, locked and loaded that guy's shot count
would have gone from 30 rounds to around 3 and a couple of more people
would be alive and not wounded."

More likely everyone would be shooting each other because nobody would
know for sure who started the shooting. They'd be shooting everyone
they saw with a gun.

I'm getting pretty tired of pointing out that more guns mean more
killings. The countries that have strong gun control have far fewer
killings than we have in the good ol' USofA.

On Feb 15, 9:00 am, "Bill O'Really" <gbora...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You hafta laugh when Christians try and take the moral high ground
> over Islam - Islam is only a century or 2 behind Christianity - all
> three Abrahamic religions are based upon the same backward, negative,
> sexist, racist ideology - and misplaced and disproven concept of a
> giant Sky Daddy
>
> It if hadnt been for rational. freethinkers, atheists, agnostics,
> scientists and the like Christianity wouldnt have been dragged kicking
> and screaming into the light of contemporary enlightenment..
>
> Christians would still have been torturing, murdering, spreading lies
> and hateful ignorant bullshit
>
> And some still are!!
>
> http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/
>
> Bill
>
> religion will be the death of us all..........
>
> On 15 Feb, 16:39, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:53 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution
> > > of a woman convicted of witchcraft." It gets much worse than that of
> > > course, if you read the rest of it or find other articles about this
> > > but I think its enough to make the point pretty clear.
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm
>
> > > Of course most Christians and Muslims don't see it as a necessity to
> > > rid the world of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft; but some of them do
> > > and to me this sort of thing just punctuates the necessity for keeping
> > > our society as secular as possible. The horrible things that go on in
> > > places like Saudi Arabia just goes to show that even in the year 2008
> > > with as far as the human race has come, we're still not that far away
> > > from the terrifyingly primitive behavior that religion necessarily
> > > brings with it.
>
> > Well put Dag. This is also the reason why we can't make compromises on
> > our own freedoms in the name of so-called "respect" for Islam.
>
> > Once the Gag is there of criticizing the kind of things you're talking
> > about, it's a lot harder to remove it and makes it a lot easier for
> > these kinds of outrages to occur.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:58 pm
From: Medusa

Trance;

> On Feb 15, 10:53 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution
> > of a woman convicted of witchcraft." It gets much worse than that of
> > course, if you read the rest of it or find other articles about this
> > but I think its enough to make the point pretty clear.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm
>
> > Of course most Christians and Muslims don't see it as a necessity to
> > rid the world of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft; but some of them do
> > and to me this sort of thing just punctuates the necessity for keeping
> > our society as secular as possible. The horrible things that go on in
> > places like Saudi Arabia just goes to show that even in the year 2008
> > with as far as the human race has come, we're still not that far away
> > from the terrifyingly primitive behavior that religion necessarily
> > brings with it.
>
> Well put Dag. This is also the reason why we can't make compromises on
> our own freedoms in the name of so-called "respect" for Islam.

Exactly! We must never give up any of our freesoms to appease any
religions!

"Respect?" Where is the respect for human rights?

> Once the Gag is there of criticizing the kind of things you're talking
> about, it's a lot harder to remove it and makes it a lot easier for
> these kinds of outrages to occur.

We must not permit a "gag" to be put on ourselves. You are right;
once a right is weakened, it is very difficult for it to be restored.

Medusa

AA #2281

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:00 pm
From: Walt

On Feb 15, 11:06 am, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Allah is great! The entire world should be under Sharia!" is a common
> Muslim sentiment.
>
> I didn't know "death to witches" was also evident in 2008.
>
> I guess Allah is so impotent that is threatened by witchcraft?

Is this really totally different from putting someone in jail for
many years for selling marijuana to other adults? (Something which
happens frequently in the US.) I don't think you can blame
that on religion.

I'm not an expert, but I think it's correct to say that Sharia exists
more for historical reasons than religious ones. Genghis Khan
attacked the Muslim world before the Christian because it
had more wealth to plunder at the time. The populations
of entire cities were executed, and infrastructure such
as irrigation systems that had been built up over
centuries was destroyed. Sharia law arose during this
time, and perhaps could be compared to the imposition
of martial law after a major catastrophe. Genghis Khan
died on the verge of attacking Western Europe, and his
successors turned their attention to Eastern Asia.

>
> On Feb 15, 7:53 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution
> > of a woman convicted of witchcraft." It gets much worse than that of
> > course, if you read the rest of it or find other articles about this
> > but I think its enough to make the point pretty clear.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm
>
> > Of course most Christians and Muslims don't see it as a necessity to
> > rid the world of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft; but some of them do
> > and to me this sort of thing just punctuates the necessity for keeping
> > our society as secular as possible. The horrible things that go on in
> > places like Saudi Arabia just goes to show that even in the year 2008
> > with as far as the human race has come, we're still not that far away
> > from the terrifyingly primitive behavior that religion necessarily
> > brings with it.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:08 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Feb 15, 3:58 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Trance;
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:53 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution
> > > of a woman convicted of witchcraft." It gets much worse than that of
> > > course, if you read the rest of it or find other articles about this
> > > but I think its enough to make the point pretty clear.
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm
>
> > > Of course most Christians and Muslims don't see it as a necessity to
> > > rid the world of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft; but some of them do
> > > and to me this sort of thing just punctuates the necessity for keeping
> > > our society as secular as possible. The horrible things that go on in
> > > places like Saudi Arabia just goes to show that even in the year 2008
> > > with as far as the human race has come, we're still not that far away
> > > from the terrifyingly primitive behavior that religion necessarily
> > > brings with it.
>
> > Well put Dag. This is also the reason why we can't make compromises on
> > our own freedoms in the name of so-called "respect" for Islam.
>
> Exactly! We must never give up any of our freesoms to appease any
> religions!
>
> "Respect?" Where is the respect for human rights?
>
> > Once the Gag is there of criticizing the kind of things you're talking
> > about, it's a lot harder to remove it and makes it a lot easier for
> > these kinds of outrages to occur.
>
> We must not permit a "gag" to be put on ourselves. You are right;
> once a right is weakened, it is very difficult for it to be restored.
>
> Medusa
>

Thanks for the support Medusa. Hope all your friends came through the
NIU tragedy safe and sound and that you're okay.

> AA #2281- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are they just afraid to let go, is it fear of the unknown?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/dc8db937fcdef74a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:37 pm
From: Brock Organ

On Feb 15, 9:36 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Reason is fallible.
>
> > > Maybe, but it's the best tool we have allowing us to make sense of
> > > reality.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Brock
>
> There is no utility ever gleaned from belief in magical mystery sky
> pixies. Reason, on the other hand, has allowed us to achieve momentous
> achievements and expand our life expectancy.

I'm just pointing out that:

Reason is fallible. :)

> Therefore reason is the best tool we have allowing us to make sense of
> reality.

Not much in the way of proof.

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hate speech or free speech?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/82d8ff7b51067c09?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:38 pm
From: Walt

On Feb 15, 3:28 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.
> http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> according to the above Christians?

I don't think the article you link to is advocating free speech. It's
just trying to claim that the court's decision is the first step
towards banning the bible. The better question to ask is,
how would they feel about an ad advocating incest that cited
passages in the old testament describing Lot committing
incest.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:02 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Feb 15, 3:28 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> according to the above Christians?

The foundation of this issue and the reason that this Judge could make
the determination that he did is that Canada has Hate Speech laws.

The problem with these Hate Speech laws (aside from the fact that they
exist at all is that they are badly written and vague. This has made
them extremely controversial.

Here's some background: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hate speech of free speech
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/0a710f1fcfd7f105?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:51 pm
From: Simpleton

On Feb 15, 12:40 pm, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Contrarily, this one example is such that I cannot defend it. Believe
> me, I dislike being in this position, and otherwise would never
> condone silencing anyone or anything. With so many people with very
> twisted visions of Christian Correctness, the fact that some have
> already taken these words literally puts the scriptures firmly into
> "yelling fire in a theater" company.
>

A theater is not a public place where Free Speech applies. The right
to Free Speech should not be confused with the right to always have a
medium of your choice to carry your Free Speech.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 12:57 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Feb 15, 12:33 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> > free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> > newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> > How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> > wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> > according to the above Christians?
>
> I am with the Christians in this instance. No, I do not support the
> verses, just their right to offend.

Are you equally with the person who wants to advertise that there's
nothing wrong with murdering Christians?

> Speech that is deemed offensive is precisely the speech to be
> protected under Free Speech.
>
> I have a secondary motive: I like examples showing that Christians do
> not quite buy into that "fulfillment" thingy Jesus has supposedly done
> with the OT.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:00 pm
From: Simpleton

On Feb 15, 12:57 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:33 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> > > free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> > > newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> > > How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> > > wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> > > according to the above Christians?
>
> > I am with the Christians in this instance. No, I do not support the
> > verses, just their right to offend.
>
> Are you equally with the person who wants to advertise that there's
> nothing wrong with murdering Christians?
>

Absolutely. I do not endorse that position either. Nor will I
complain if the newspaper decided not to carry the ad.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:03 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Feb 15, 3:33 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> > free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> > newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> > How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> > wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> > according to the above Christians?
>
> I am with the Christians in this instance. No, I do not support the
> verses, just their right to offend.
>
> Speech that is deemed offensive is precisely the speech to be
> protected under Free Speech.
>
> I have a secondary motive: I like examples showing that Christians do
> not quite buy into that "fulfillment" thingy Jesus has supposedly done
> with the OT.

The foundation of this issue and the reason that this Judge could make
the determination that he did is that Canada has Hate Speech laws.

The problem with these Hate Speech laws (aside from the fact that they
exist at all is that they are badly written and vague. This has made
them extremely controversial.

Here's some background: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:07 pm
From: Simpleton

On Feb 15, 1:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:33 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> > > free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> > > newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> > > How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> > > wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> > > according to the above Christians?
>
> > I am with the Christians in this instance. No, I do not support the
> > verses, just their right to offend.
>
> > Speech that is deemed offensive is precisely the speech to be
> > protected under Free Speech.
>
> > I have a secondary motive: I like examples showing that Christians do
> > not quite buy into that "fulfillment" thingy Jesus has supposedly done
> > with the OT.
>
> The foundation of this issue and the reason that this Judge could make
> the determination that he did is that Canada has Hate Speech laws.
>
> The problem with these Hate Speech laws (aside from the fact that they
> exist at all is that they are badly written and vague. This has made
> them extremely controversial.
>
> Here's some background:http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

I oppose all Hate Speech and Hate Crime laws, too. Especially Hate
Crime laws. To me they seem to indicate that a murder is somehow more
acceptable than a murder that had hate behind it, or that the
enforcement of the current law has no teeth. In which case, why not
work on making that work?

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:11 pm
From: Medusa

Simpleton;

> On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> > free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> > newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> > How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> > wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> > according to the above Christians?
>
> I am with the Christians in this instance. No, I do not support the
> verses, just their right to offend.
>
> Speech that is deemed offensive is precisely the speech to be
> protected under Free Speech.

Exactly. This is one of the main tenets of the ACLU.

If one of us is not free, none of us are free. The most offensive,
vile speech is protected in the United States Constitution.

> I have a secondary motive: I like examples showing that Christians do
> not quite buy into that "fulfillment" thingy Jesus has supposedly done
> with the OT.

And this is a good example.

Medusa

AA #2281

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:15 pm
From: rappoccio

On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Verses saying there's nothing wrong with murdereing homosexuals are
> > free speech say Christians denouncing a court decision that declared a
> > newspaper advertisement with such verses to be hate speech.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=743
>
> > How about a newspaper advertisement with text saying there's nothing
> > wrong with murdering Christians? Would that be free speech too,
> > according to the above Christians?
>
> I am with the Christians in this instance. No, I do not support the
> verses, just their right to offend.
>
> Speech that is deemed offensive is precisely the speech to be
> protected under Free Speech.
>
> I have a secondary motive: I like examples showing that Christians do
> not quite buy into that "fulfillment" thingy Jesus has supposedly done
> with the OT.

I agree with Simpleton here. It is protected under free speech. That
is, until the advocation is of actual specific violence, and then it's
not anymore because it presents a clear and present danger (like
shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atheism vs. Christianity for Dumbasses
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/aad2c1364c97ea28?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:04 pm
From: Checkers

On Feb 15, 5:40 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly. I don't really care how many people are verbally abusive to
> me, if they have a good argument I'll take it and learn from it. I'd
> suggest all do the same.

chx
not true, you were in an atheist mindframe before this. if it takes
ten steps, you were on step nine. without this group it would have
taken perhaps a year longer. i know, i did it the other way around.
i'll rest here.

>
> On Feb 15, 8:45 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks and likewise to you--it is a recurring theme that theists
> > pretend that someone has no case just because they don't like the
> > aggressive tone, when in reality they just can't offer a
> > counterargument and find it easier to whine. Whenever I flame someone
> > it is for at least one of three reasons: they're being a hypocrite,
> > they're being dishonest or they are being really stupid. It isn't just
> > a matter of being disagreed with, there is a certain level of reason I
> > expect from a self-proclaimed human and if they don't seem to be
> > trying I'm calling them on it. There's a reason none of the good
> > posters seem interested in ACRD except as a novelty--they are content
> > enough with themselves that when they are called "stupid" they know
> > it's usually just the rantings of a stupid person. The ACRD people
> > know, on some level, that they're stupid which is why it bothers them
> > so much being addressed as such. They just don't want to be called
> > what they are accurately.
>
> > On Feb 15, 7:26 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 7:58 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 11:58 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 14, 2:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 6:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I've noticed that the posters who hold no moral or intellectual
> > > > > > > standards to themselves (Keith, EGreg, PD, Mike, Deidzoeb, SRC,
> > > > > > > Geloso, Crowley, Brock, Chris, etc.) are upset about the fact that
> > > > > > > some people tell the truth about the reality of their cruel joke of an
> > > > > > > existence. I figured it was only fair to start a group for these
> > > > > > > lowlifes where they could ban anyone who didn't lie about the reality
> > > > > > > of their pathetic essence of being. Hence, _Atheism vs. Christianity
> > > > > > > for Dumbasses_. If you are a confirmed dumbass from AvC, just join the
> > > > > > > group and I will set you up as a moderator to moderate as you wish
> > > > > > > with no interference or further involvement from me. My involvement in
> > > > > > > said group will be limited to making sure only the confirmed dumbasses
> > > > > > > of AvC are given absolute authority. Obviously, with all their
> > > > > > > bitching, they are certain they could form a better group so this is
> > > > > > > _their_ opportunity to prove it. Let's see how the fucktards do with
> > > > > > > their own group. No need to thank me.
>
> > > > > > And when that's accomplished, then you can petition to have Atheism vs
> > > > > > Christianity renamed to something more appropriate, like:
> > > > > > Atheism and Atheists Only So We Can Talk Among Ourselves Without Our
> > > > > > Blood Pressure Going Up
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > Just a Place for Bashing Christianity Because It Feels Good
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > Finally, A Place Where We Atheists Get Our Say Without Having to Even
> > > > > > Deal With Those Pigshit Christians
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > Anyone Who Disagrees With Me is Obviously Insane, Stupid, Evil or All
> > > > > > Three
> > > > > > or just plain
> > > > > > OMG, I'm So Pissed I Can't See Straight
>
> > > > > > PD
>
> > > > > PD, you're free to ignore people who you find offensive. No one is
> > > > > forcing you to reply to people you're not interested in replying to.
>
> > > > And I don't. I reserve the right to mock jerks for being jerks, and to
> > > > ignore jerks for being jerks, as pleases me at the moment.
>
> > > > PD
>
> > > Here's the thing, though, PD. None of the theists here like Dev.
> > > However I haven't seen a single one of them come up with an argument
> > > that can counter his, besides dismissing him outright. If you engage
> > > him in a rational discourse, he treats you just fine. He eventually
> > > gets very upset when people make irrational claims or wildly incorrect
> > > conclusions. Like him or hate him, I've yet to see someone actually
> > > trounce him in an argument.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thy will be done
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/11e3f79b1a756490?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:06 pm
From: wiseclam

On Feb 15, 12:33 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:54 am, wiseclam <wisec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > And it's an especially serious problem if there is no God to begin
> > with.
>
> It would be. Fortunately that is not an issue for me. ;-)

So... can I assume you are OK with a God who is aware that His
creation (i.e., people) will assume to know His will and act out in
horrible ways as a result - yet do nothing about it?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Spiritual Dimension
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c26b6903af66feea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:08 pm
From: Jackson Pillock

On 13 Feb, 05:40, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hang on to your seats, homies, 'cause some of your cronies ain't even
> human!!
>
> No, seriously. Maybe that's not true. But there may be a way to
> know.
>
> I have experience of a spiritual dimension. Now, either the reader
> understands what I mean or does not. It is a very interesting
> dichotomy, because if he can't, he will naturally assume I am lying.
> He will naturally assume I am pretending to have experience of a
> spiritual dimension, and that I am fabricating an account of it by
> borrowing images from the physical dimensions that science deals with.

Can you describe the spiritual dimension so I can know whether I've
experienced it? Specifically is it like love and art and beauty and
nature and all those other 'spiritual' things which we atheists
evidently have no access to?

>
> I have said I have experience of it. I will extrapolate from myself
> to others like me and say: human beings have the experience of it.
> So, if you think I am lying, guess what?
>
> I do not mean, if you just say I am a liar because you like to react
> that way to me, or if you say I am a liar to paint me black, or any
> number of other reasons people often have for calling others liars. I
> mean, if you really, honest to (whatever?) think that I am lying about
> my experience of a spiritual dimension, and attempting to pass off the
> lie by making it plausibly analogous to physical reality THEN YOU ARE
> NOT HUMAN. If you ever wondered, now you know. There are some things
> humans can experience that animals cannot.
>
> I do wonder about some of you.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:09 pm
From: Simpleton

On Feb 15, 12:42 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:21 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:02 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 1:32 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 3:53 am, cathyb <cathybees...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > .....
> > > > > I wish he'd grow a conscience rather than relying on religious dogma.
>
> > > > Joe cannot do anything like that. It's obvious that he has sever
> > > > psychological problems. It's amazing that anyone takes him seriously.
>
> > > Hey Trance, here's another one. The mental health stigma police force
> > > are currently busy gorging on donuts, but will attempt to convince
> > > Dave at our earliest convenience that he is thoughtlessly using mental
> > > health stigma as a rhetorical device, not out of any genuine concern,
> > > and that actual humans with actual mental illness don't deserve to be
> > > tarred by these overly broad brush-strokes. (Some of them might be
> > > decent, mostly reasonable atheists. Perish the thought.)
>
> > Bad example to pick on, Deidzoeb. I am certain that you will NOT get
> > what I am saying, even if I asked you to look at his posts over the
> > last decade in the catholic newsgroups.
>
> I'm aware that Joe believes some outlandish things, including his
> claim that mental illness is actually literal demonic possession, and
> that some guy from Boston (or was he only hospitalized in Boston?)
> will be recognized by Pope JP II as a magical being mentioned in the
> Bible. And that JP II will need to be resurrected on earth just to
> fulfill that prophecy.
>
> I still don't think that the lapses of logic that led to Joe's beliefs
> are worth considering as a "psychological problem." Not every lapse in
> logic deserves to have its own diagnosis. Ethical psychologists and
> psychiatrists refrain from pronouncing judgment on people they have
> not personally evaluated. (Notice the scorn that was heaped on Dr.
> Phil for his public comments on Britney Spears, who was not his
> patient, in a state where he's not even licensed to practice
> psychology.)
>
> So at best we have a lot of people on this group who are relying on
> inadequate knowledge of pop psychology, thinking they are making
> serious diagnoses of people. At worst, it's people cynically using the
> known stigma value of mental illness as an insult towards ppl they
> disagree with.

I was right.

I am quite certain that you will still NOT understand that the above
was not what I was referring you to look up.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The uselessness of the epistemology of religion
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/efbf5531f1377266?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:11 pm
From: rappoccio

PD and I have been having a discussion about the nature of our
activities here, and I thought it would be good to start a thread
outlining the epistemology of religious types.

Firstly, I'll outline the epistemology that everyone uses (at least
some of the time).

Then, I'll outline the epistemology that I used to have when I was a
theist, so I think is typical. I'll also point out it's shortcomings
since I have a good perspective on that, since I deemed them
sufficient to stop calling myself a theist.

So the epistemology that we all share is that observation and reason
gives us information about the world we inhabit. Every single living
thing on the planet interacts with the environment to determine truth,
and we are no different. We observe events and reason through them to
determine the truth. We look both ways to see if there are cars coming
before we cross the street. We avoid falling off long drops to the
ground. We drive at reasonable speeds to avoid accidents with fatal
speeds. We avoid bleeding excessively. We avoid head trauma. All of
these things require the usage of observation and reason to make
judgments. So we all use them. They're also enormously successful at
solving problems, as evidenced by the fact that as soon as they became
"in vogue" to apply to scientific phenomena, we went from a quality of
life associated with hunter-gatherers to a tripled life expectancy and
health benefits, as well as having deduced information about our
universe from times microseconds after its inception to the distant
future, from tiny subatomic particles to enormous galaxial
formations.

There is a secondary epistemology that applies to religion that claims
to be of use. This is the so-called "divine intervention"
epistemology, for lack of a better word. That is, that God plants
information in our brains (don't bother asking how this happens, when
it happens, or what was implanted, you'll get the run around) that was
not arrived at via observation or reason.

Let's put aside the conundrum of how the person therefore can be
certain that said information is actually there. I doubt it highly and
they can't prove it so it's totally useless, but let's just move on.

Let's focus on the actual decisions one would make based on this
"input" that allegedly comes from God.

The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?

I propose that there is no way to do this. I think that everyone else
subconsciously agrees, even though they consciously object to this.
What people think is "direction from God" is actually subconsciously
filtered through a kind of "moral litmus test" that they've already
decided upon "ahead of time" (in formation of their brain, whether
through genetics or environmental testing). The "direction" they get
from God is claimed to be instructions of "morality", since they claim
that "God gives us morality".

This is bunk.

Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own
prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
designed from God or not.

This means that this epistemology of determining truth via religion is
useless and futile.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How does the thinking Christian "digest" the story of Noah's Ark?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/9f3ca4e0a5cdf1b1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2008 1:13 pm
From: wiseclam

The story of Noah's Ark is perhaps the most incredible story in the
bible. How does a thinking Christian (OldMan, for example) deal with
this story? Do you reject it? Do you accept it as truth but assume
divine intervention (not mentioned in the story)?

Does this story not cast some doubt on the Christian story for you?

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

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

Friday, February 15, 2008

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links