Atheism vs Christianity: 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Parable of the Good Father
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/8b30ee8f9e73a108?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:17 pm
From: rappoccio

Simp, this is your best post probably ever ;). BRILLIANT!

You forgot about the part when "JH" murders all but two of his
children because they're naughty, of course ;)

On Feb 28, 5:22 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> J H Christopher was a content human, and as he grew out of his teens,
> and came of beer-drinking age, he met Sally, and they decided to
> procreate.
>
> Together they had two children: Burt and Tameka.
>
> One day, J H decided to take his lovely wife to dinner. This was the
> first time they were leaving both Burt and Tameka behind, and decided
> to hire the services of the neighborhood teenage babysitter Gunther.
> Gunther was a troubled teen having gotten in trouble all around the
> neighborhood, TPing houses, urinating on some neighbor's lawn, etc.
>
> But JH really liked the kid, and so it was arranged. 16 year old
> Gunther to watch 4 and 7 year old Burt and Tameka.
>
> Before they left, J H brought his shotgun down from the attic, loaded
> it, took the safety off, and left it in the center of the family
> room. He then proceeded to explain to Burt and Tameka that a gun was
> dangerous, and under no circumstances were they to touch it at all.
> He warned that using the shotgun could result in death*, and that they
> will suffer for the rest of their lives.
>
> JH and Sally left for their date, with Gunther in charge.
>
> After a few rounds of Etch-a-Sketch, Nintendo, Doctor, and Play doe,
> Tameka's eyes shifted to the gun. She wanted to play with it, but was
> reminded of the grave consequences. Gunther noticed her curiosity and
> encouraged her to try the shotgun.
>
> "But it'll be deadly, and I do not want to kill anyone", she said.
>
> "You won't, trust me" said Gunther.
>
> "Don't, daddy will be mad!" whined Burt, but Tameka said it would be
> OK. Burt reluctantly agreed.
>
> Tameka played with it, and after a while, squeezed the trigger. As
> complete random chance would have it, she shot her brother in the leg.
>
> Burt let out blood-curdling screams, and hearing this the friendly
> neighbor rushed over, and immediately called the 911 folks (Noah Wylie
> and co.), and called JH.
>
> JH was furious when he got back, and instead of watching Noah Wylie
> and co., he went to check out the footage on the hidden video camera
> he had installed.
>
> He collected his thoughts, and then let Tameka and Burt have it. He
> vowed that they will be punished for the rest of their lives, for
> disobeying his. "I told you not to play with that loaded shotgun, and
> you wanted to be just like daddy. For this you shall suffer physical
> abuse for the rest of your life. So shall your kids". As Burt tried
> to protest "But, I had noth...", JH dismissively ignored his pathetic
> excuses. "You shall leave my house as soon** as you are better"
>
> Gunther was not spared either. "You shall never baby-sit my kids
> again, you shall have no purpose but to TP houses and urinate on that
> friendly neighbor's lawn!" was the cruel (and unusual) punishment
> handed to him, and was asked to get out of his sight.
>
> Gunther complied.
>
> (Five years elapse)
>
> Gunther turns 21, and JH decided to take him out for a beer.
>
> "That Burt of yours is quite a sissy, JH"
> "Why?"
> "Look how badly he limps. For crying out loud, it has been five
> years"
> "Fuck you!"
> "I bet he hates your gut, JH"
> "I bet that no matter what I do to him, he'll always love me"
> "Your mama!" said Gunther.
>
> JH decided to show Gunther, and they agreed on a bet***.
>
> They got home, and Gunther just started raining blows on Burt in plain
> view of his father demanding that he state that he hated his father,
> since his dad won't do anything to stop the blows.
>
> Burt sobbed, wailed, but stood firm. Well, as firm as he could on a
> shot leg.
>
> Gunther didn't stop, and started kicking him in the shin real hard.
>
> Finally Burt yelled "Dad, are you going to do something?"
>
> JH did.
>
> He took out his belt and whipped the boy silly till he was writhing on
> the floor in pain. As Sally and Tameka came to Burt's rescue, JH
> whipped them too.
>
> "It is my house, and I set the rules! Any of you that does not like my
> rules, can leave. NOW!"
>
> Sobbing the three of them went away to the bedroom, and continued
> sobbing.
>
> Gunther and JH downed a couple of brewskies each.
>
> JH finally felt regret for clobbering his family, so that night he
> took them to Red Lobster. With Gunther.
>
> As they all enjoyed the Tijuana lobster, both Tameka and Burt said
> "You are the bestest dad in the whole world, and we know that you love
> us. We will never live apart from you, and we will always love you".
>
> Gunther laughed, but JH had the last laugh (or laughed the loudest) as
> he won his wager.
>
> THE END.
>
> --
> * Death as in cessation of all chemical and physical processes of a
> lifeform.
> ** soon as in some unspecified time later.
> *** wager unknown

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:28 pm
From: scooter

That was really fun, yet disturbing, reading, Simp. Thanks. It
reminded me of one of those older Twilight Zone episodes. Really well
done!!

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:34 pm
From: OldMan

Interesting. But do you mind sharing just what point you are trying
to get across. Remember, that as a theist, I am bound to be slow and
unable to grasp the depths of your logic here. You're going to just
have to spell it out for me.

On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> J H Christopher was a content human, and as he grew out of his teens,
> and came of beer-drinking age, he met Sally, and they decided to
> procreate.
>
> Together they had two children: Burt and Tameka.
>
> One day, J H decided to take his lovely wife to dinner. This was the
> first time they were leaving both Burt and Tameka behind, and decided
> to hire the services of the neighborhood teenage babysitter Gunther.
> Gunther was a troubled teen having gotten in trouble all around the
> neighborhood, TPing houses, urinating on some neighbor's lawn, etc.
>
> But JH really liked the kid, and so it was arranged. 16 year old
> Gunther to watch 4 and 7 year old Burt and Tameka.
>
> Before they left, J H brought his shotgun down from the attic, loaded
> it, took the safety off, and left it in the center of the family
> room. He then proceeded to explain to Burt and Tameka that a gun was
> dangerous, and under no circumstances were they to touch it at all.
> He warned that using the shotgun could result in death*, and that they
> will suffer for the rest of their lives.
>
> JH and Sally left for their date, with Gunther in charge.
>
> After a few rounds of Etch-a-Sketch, Nintendo, Doctor, and Play doe,
> Tameka's eyes shifted to the gun. She wanted to play with it, but was
> reminded of the grave consequences. Gunther noticed her curiosity and
> encouraged her to try the shotgun.
>
> "But it'll be deadly, and I do not want to kill anyone", she said.
>
> "You won't, trust me" said Gunther.
>
> "Don't, daddy will be mad!" whined Burt, but Tameka said it would be
> OK. Burt reluctantly agreed.
>
> Tameka played with it, and after a while, squeezed the trigger. As
> complete random chance would have it, she shot her brother in the leg.
>
> Burt let out blood-curdling screams, and hearing this the friendly
> neighbor rushed over, and immediately called the 911 folks (Noah Wylie
> and co.), and called JH.
>
> JH was furious when he got back, and instead of watching Noah Wylie
> and co., he went to check out the footage on the hidden video camera
> he had installed.
>
> He collected his thoughts, and then let Tameka and Burt have it. He
> vowed that they will be punished for the rest of their lives, for
> disobeying his. "I told you not to play with that loaded shotgun, and
> you wanted to be just like daddy. For this you shall suffer physical
> abuse for the rest of your life. So shall your kids". As Burt tried
> to protest "But, I had noth...", JH dismissively ignored his pathetic
> excuses. "You shall leave my house as soon** as you are better"
>
> Gunther was not spared either. "You shall never baby-sit my kids
> again, you shall have no purpose but to TP houses and urinate on that
> friendly neighbor's lawn!" was the cruel (and unusual) punishment
> handed to him, and was asked to get out of his sight.
>
> Gunther complied.
>
> (Five years elapse)
>
> Gunther turns 21, and JH decided to take him out for a beer.
>
> "That Burt of yours is quite a sissy, JH"
> "Why?"
> "Look how badly he limps. For crying out loud, it has been five
> years"
> "Fuck you!"
> "I bet he hates your gut, JH"
> "I bet that no matter what I do to him, he'll always love me"
> "Your mama!" said Gunther.
>
> JH decided to show Gunther, and they agreed on a bet***.
>
> They got home, and Gunther just started raining blows on Burt in plain
> view of his father demanding that he state that he hated his father,
> since his dad won't do anything to stop the blows.
>
> Burt sobbed, wailed, but stood firm. Well, as firm as he could on a
> shot leg.
>
> Gunther didn't stop, and started kicking him in the shin real hard.
>
> Finally Burt yelled "Dad, are you going to do something?"
>
> JH did.
>
> He took out his belt and whipped the boy silly till he was writhing on
> the floor in pain. As Sally and Tameka came to Burt's rescue, JH
> whipped them too.
>
> "It is my house, and I set the rules! Any of you that does not like my
> rules, can leave. NOW!"
>
> Sobbing the three of them went away to the bedroom, and continued
> sobbing.
>
> Gunther and JH downed a couple of brewskies each.
>
> JH finally felt regret for clobbering his family, so that night he
> took them to Red Lobster. With Gunther.
>
> As they all enjoyed the Tijuana lobster, both Tameka and Burt said
> "You are the bestest dad in the whole world, and we know that you love
> us. We will never live apart from you, and we will always love you".
>
> Gunther laughed, but JH had the last laugh (or laughed the loudest) as
> he won his wager.
>
> THE END.
>
> --
> * Death as in cessation of all chemical and physical processes of a
> lifeform.
> ** soon as in some unspecified time later.
> *** wager unknown

==============================================================================
TOPIC: If you are a "believer", then, why does God discriminate against
amputees???
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/5b17b09e2f2d0ecd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:22 pm
From: Observer

On Feb 20, 8:12 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is not 'God who answer prayer', it is the faith of the prayers
> themselves who makes it to happen.

Observer
Please give us reasons to believe that prayer ever worked. Something
that we can independently verify . If you refer to the bible then
include an explanation of why we should believe in the bible and why
we should believe it is the inspired word of a god.

Psychonomist

>
> On Feb 20, 11:20 pm, Lady Butterfly <ladytruthsee...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Christians.... if you are a "believer" then, why does God
> > discriminate against amputees???
> > According to Christian believers, God answers prayers. There are many
> > books and articles written about all the miracle cures attributed to
> > prayers said to God. Cancer cures, brain tumors, blindness,
> > deafness..... The list seems endless.
>
> > People are instructed to pray alone, pray in groups at their churches,
> > even form large "Prayer circles" over the internet. Believers are
> > instructed to "seek, and you will find"; "knock, and it will be opened
> > to you" and as far as "faith" goes, all you need is faith the size of
> > a mustard seed.
>
> > All of this is nice, but we ought to find a deserving person who has
> > had both of his legs amputated.... Like a devoted soldier, a veteran of
> > the Iraqi War, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile
> > accident. We could place this amputee in the care of these prayer
> > groups from now until the end of time without seeing his legs
> > regenerate
> > The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed
> > limbs of amputees.
>
> > Isn't it interesting that an "ALL POWERFUL GOD" refuses to regenerate
> > new legs for amputees? . God never answers the prayers of amputees.
> > It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out
> > amputees and purposefully ignoring them.
> > Either God is discriminating against amputees.... OR..... The real truth
> > is that there is no such thing as "God".
>
> > These are some of my thoughts...... share yours.....
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > Lady Butterfly

==============================================================================
TOPIC: And another thing...everyone please vote on this...
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/0e98fb814346a2cb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:25 pm
From: Dev

I'm a little confused. It is all very apparent what is going on. I
suspect even Brock, dillan, etc. realize they aren't really providing
arguments and everyone else knows this so what's up? I think that
theists simply have lost the capacity for reason. It's almost like
there's no point in trying to talk to them.

On Feb 28, 8:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I'd say (2) is the case, there is no counterargument given because
> there is none to give.
>
> On Feb 28, 10:56 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is what everyone here who is intelligent knows.
>
> > If someone insults you, you are not rendered helpless in dealing with
> > their points. If you are of human intelligence, the insult--at worst--
> > will motivate you to provide a retort to your opponent's rationale.
>
> > I provide challenge after challenge here to the thetards and I get
> > _nothing_ but dodges and lies. Now, I want people to specifically
> > fucking address this. Which of these two options is more likely...
>
> > (1) Do theists have these magical retorts that will rip my arguments
> > to shreds but simply don't provide them because I'm mean and haven't
> > somehow "earned" them because I tell the truth about their behavior
> > and my opinion of them and there really is a magic Sky Daddy who
> > doesn't want them to debate rationally and they are so special as to
> > know this?
>
> > OR...
>
> > (2) They don't have anything. They are wrong because they have no
> > brains, and they don't give a shit about being wrong because they have
> > no consciences.
>
> > There isn't a third option. You can invent one, but it won't be
> > substantiated. I already gave you one unsubstantiated argument, so if
> > you want to be stupid you might as well choose that one. I am just
> > amazed at how low the fuckers on this group sink. They must know on
> > some level that I'm right, which is why they are so scared--even so
> > scared as to start a new group away from me and those who realize I'm
> > right.
>
> > If you were _honest_ about not wanting this to come to violence you
> > would provide the alternative which is rational arguments. That's all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:36 pm
From: scooter

I once watched a football game at a friends house and, not being the
biggest fan, I had never heard John Madden's commentary. I think he
summed it up well when he explained the other teams strategy was
faulty because they kept calling plays that resulted in "none yards."
I pick 2!!

On Feb 28, 10:56 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Here is what everyone here who is intelligent knows.
>
> If someone insults you, you are not rendered helpless in dealing with
> their points. If you are of human intelligence, the insult--at worst--
> will motivate you to provide a retort to your opponent's rationale.
>
> I provide challenge after challenge here to the thetards and I get
> _nothing_ but dodges and lies. Now, I want people to specifically
> fucking address this. Which of these two options is more likely...
>
> (1) Do theists have these magical retorts that will rip my arguments
> to shreds but simply don't provide them because I'm mean and haven't
> somehow "earned" them because I tell the truth about their behavior
> and my opinion of them and there really is a magic Sky Daddy who
> doesn't want them to debate rationally and they are so special as to
> know this?
>
> OR...
>
> (2) They don't have anything. They are wrong because they have no
> brains, and they don't give a shit about being wrong because they have
> no consciences.
>
> There isn't a third option. You can invent one, but it won't be
> substantiated. I already gave you one unsubstantiated argument, so if
> you want to be stupid you might as well choose that one. I am just
> amazed at how low the fuckers on this group sink. They must know on
> some level that I'm right, which is why they are so scared--even so
> scared as to start a new group away from me and those who realize I'm
> right.
>
> If you were _honest_ about not wanting this to come to violence you
> would provide the alternative which is rational arguments. That's all.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God Machine and the Dalai Lama
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/6f8758a85e55fffd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:25 pm
From: Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God Machine

What better place for Middle Easterns bent on terrorism to launder
money than a poker casino grossing hundreds of millions of dollars
owned by Middle Easterners? Poker Al-Qaeda! Internet poker was shut
down by the US government as part of the Patriot Act to help stop the
money laundering achieved through the internet by terrorist
organizations.

Poker. Poker Al-Qaeda. Internet. Poker. Poker Al-Qaeda Casinos. Get
it?

Two Al-Qaeda were caught partly because of their activiities at the
Casino Niagra. 2002 see above. The police are even raiding some home
games as possible sources of terrorist funding.

It's World War III.

Let's see: Military Conflicts and/or terrorist attacks in the United
States, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the Sudan, and Israel, Spain,
England, and Denmark, the Phllipines, and Thailand. Iran as a
terrorist sponsor, Russia and China arming Iran.

It's World War III.

OK, let's here from the Islamo-fascists on this one, disguised as
nasty anti-theists (except they are not anti-theist against Islamo-
fascism, of course).

On Feb 28, 7:16 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:23 pm, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
>
>
>
>
>
> Machine <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's was World War III for me when the Twin Towers came down, and the
> > televison showed some Middle Eastern refugee camp somewhere
> > celebrating with their guns raised above their heads chanting "Death
> > to America." That's friggin' war to me, OK?
>
> > From my experiences in my own country of the United States, I know it
> > iswar forever, we are up against a continuous jihad that would like to
> > take down the United States if they could.
>
> > My experiences?: seewww.myspace.com/ScottRichardCampbellaboutthe
> > "PokerAl-Qaeda"
>
> > I am not old enough to remember World War II, but I get your
> > drift.....
>
> > Examples ofAl-Qaedalinked to casino money laundering:
>
> > Terror suspects spent $100,000 in casino scam
> > Buffalo duo likely tried to launder cash
> > HAMILTON -- Two members of an allegedAl Qaedacell arrested in Buffalo
> > last week spent at least $100,000 (U.S.) at Casino Niagara in what
> > Ontario officials suspect were money-laundering attempts. Federal
> > prosecutors in Buffalo, where the American-born suspects are in a bail
> > hearing this week, have painted the men as wily members of anAl Qaeda
> > "sleeper" cell, based in the suburb of Lackawanna. American anti-
> > terrorism officials allege that some of the men seem to have secret
> > sources of funds, the type of money needed to carry out acts ofAl> Qaedaterrorism on U.S. soil. "Terrorists will take full advantage of
> > whatever means they can," said David Harris, an anti-terrorism
> > consultant in Ottawa. "They know the art and science of laundering
> > money. Casinos are just another avenue for that."
> > Thestar.com Toronto star 9/20/02 By Joan Walters
>
> > Four or five of the 9/11 hijackers, including Atta, spent time in Las
> > Vegas, presumably networking and laundering money. I have the links if
> > you are interested....
>
> > I got involved in thepokerrooms with some guys that most likely had
> > links toAl-Qaeda, and my life has been threatened because of the book
> > that I was writing, and they have been harassing me ever since.
>
> I don't believe your story. I think you are undoubtedly paranoid, and
> now that you said that, probably schizophrenic. You're talking to
> someone with a schizophrenic brother and a schizophrenic sister. My
> alarm bells just officiallywent off. There might have been apoker
> game, there may have been some middle easterners, but most likely you
> pissed them off by stereotyping them as terrorists so they told you to
> fuck off, which you blew into an international incident as an excuse
> to not write this book.
>
> > So from my point of view: it is World War III, understand?
>
> The United States having a military conflict with two small Islamic
> countries and a international clandestine organization does not
> constitute a world war. My country is not involved. Germany is not
> involved. Russia is not involved. China is not involved. You can call
> it whatever you want, but until the world is involved it is not a
> world war. Why don't you call it Trojan War II? People would be even
> less able to know what you're talking about.
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 6:39 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 1:42 pm, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
>
> > > Machine <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Religion is a product of a long history of gene-culture-race group
> > > > selection for a geographical region. Tribal brained genetic
> > > > programming underlies much of the subconscious and emotional appeal of
> > > > religion and other ideologies. Although religions have the same
> > > > underlying purpose, to culturally enforce what is good for the
> > > > genepool, they differ in their ideologies like people differ in their
> > > > race, height, or skin color--because they too are a part of an an
> > > > adaptive complex to an environment.
>
> > > > To say that all religions are the same, is like saying that all people
> > > > are the same, and is either an act of narrow mindedness accompanied by
> > > > myopia, or you have adopted one of the very philosophies that you
> > > > disdain: the "oneness" of it all of the Advaitans, Hindi, or the
> > > > Buddhists.
>
> > > Religions are only superficially different. They all amount to the
> > > same thing. Worship the supernatural, and devote your body and your
> > > mind to that belief, and if the others don't convert, they are the
> > > enemy.
>
> > > > Yes, here, during World War III, and after, I would much rather have
> > > > the company and influence in the world of the Dalai Lama than Osama
> > > > Bin Laden.
> > > > But to you, and the men, and their religions are the same.
>
> > > In the present time and circumstances Islam appears to be more
> > > warlike. Go back to World War II and check out the murderous policies
> > > of the Japanese Buddhists. Buddhists, if given political power, wield
> > > it just as vigorously as any other religion.
>
> > > I would rather not have either the Dalai Lama or Bin Laden have any
> > > power or influence.
>
> > > And it is not World War III. You really ought to distinguish between
> > > fiction and reality, it's very distracting for people who bother
> > > trying to communicate with you. When World War III occurs, we'll all
> > > know it.
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 11:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 26, 7:16 pm, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
>
> > > > > Machine <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 26, 6:46 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 26, 3:56 pm, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
>
> > > > > > > Machine <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Main point:
>
> > > > > > > > Embracement of science and evolution instead of fighting it as a lost
> > > > > > > > cause.
> > > > > > > > This is, in my opinion, the path for future religions for anybody who
> > > > > > > > is post Tribal Brain.
>
> > > > > > > Religion IS "Tribal Brain." By definition.
>
> > > > > > > > For the stubbornly Tribal Brained, how about
> > > > > > > > living museums with thick, padded walls?
>
> > > > > > > Good. That's what we need, more totalitarians. How are you any
> > > > > > > different from the Inquisitors? The Thought Police?
>
> > > > > > > > Wiki:
> > > > > > > > "Hitchens departed from the consensus of the political left in 1989
> > > > > > > > after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the European left
> > > > > > > > following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwa against Salman
> > > > > > > > Rushdie. The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his embrace of an
> > > > > > > > interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what
> > > > > > > > he calls "fascism with an Islamic face."
> > > > > > > > End wiki.
>
> > > > > > > > We need to crank Hitchens up a bit more, don't we!
>
> > > > > > > I'd love to be present if you ever were to ask him about your "God
> > > > > > > Machine." Hitchens is as unimpressed with Buddhism as he is with Islam
> > > > > > > and Christianity:
>
> > > > > > > "The human species is an animal species without very much variation
> > > > > > > within it, and it is idle and futile to imagine that a voyage to
> > > > > > > TIbet, say, will discover an entirely different harmony with nature or
> > > > > > > eternity. The Dalai Lama, for example, is entirely and easily
> > > > > > > recognizable as a secularist. In exactly the same way as a medieval
> > > > > > > princeling, he makes the claim not just that Tibet should be
> > > > > > > independent of Chinese hegemony- a "perfectly good" demand, if I may
> > > > > > > render it into everyday English- but that he himself is a hereditary
> > > > > > > king appointed by heaven itself. How convenient! Dissenting sects
> > > > > > > within his faith are persecuted; his one-man rule in an Indian enclave
> > > > > > > is absolute; he makes absurd pronouncements about sex and diet and,
> > > > > > > when on his trips to Hollywood fund-raisers, anoints major donors like
> > > > > > > Steven Segal and Richard Gere as holy."
>
> > > > > > In human species is admittedly a glorifed ape, but after 6 million
> > > > > > years or so, its variation is staggering.
>
> > > > > Not when compared to beetles, ants, moths, nudibranchs, dogs, cats,
> > > > > jays, finches, cockroaches, slimes, ferns, pines, bees, salmon,
> > > > > monkeys...shall I go on?
>
> > > > > > Maybe he should travel a bit more, we have the Aborignials in
> > > > > > Australia surviving in the Outback that would toast you or me within
> > > > > > three days, we still have men in Africa who can run for 6 hours in
> > > > > > 100+ degree heat to chase a wild animal until it falls in exhaustion
> > > > > > as dinner, while scientists worldwide tinker with nanotechnology,
> > > > > > genetic engineering, and play chess against machines, and remember a
> > > > > > few trips to the moon.
>
> > > > > And those Aboriginals could become scientists tinkering with
> > > > > nonotechnology, and non-Africans can run for hours too, if they train.
> > > > > Hitchens did not say there was NO variation, he just said we are
> > > > > "without very much variation." And you're missing his point anyways.
>
> > > > > > How many races, countries, cities and
> > > > > > lifestyles do we have? Hardly an animal species without variation I'd
> > > > > > say.
>
> > > > > You missed his point. It was that people who are dissatisfied with
> > > > > their own culture's religion, instead of rejecting the idea of
> > > > > religion turn to religions from other cultures. Hence the dalliance
> > > > > with Buddhism with that started with western counter-culture types. I
> > > > > know, I was there, and almost every one of my childhood friends
> > > > > adopted an eastern religion of some sort, including Buddhism. But
> > > > > their idealization of (for example) Buddhism was just that; the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How com I am never the cool guy?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3ea6b1ced918b485?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:31 pm
From: Eris

You cannot comment on anything can you?

I am sitting in my favorite sports bar eating my spicy peanut
encrusted shrimp, when I notice this guy that is with several other
couples enjoying themselves immensely. He is wearing a black t-shirt
with large white letters saying I (heart) boobs. Clearly this is a no
brainer this guy is a craven pervert.

So I make a derisive remark to my waitress about the guy in the black
t shirt. She makes an equally derisive remark about me. She owns the
same t shirt, the proceeds go to breast cancer research.

This is not fair.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:48 pm
From: Dev

So you don't heart boobs? What the hell is wrong with you? :)

On Feb 28, 8:31 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You cannot comment on anything can you?
>
> I am sitting in my favorite sports bar eating my spicy peanut
> encrusted shrimp, when I notice this guy that is with several other
> couples enjoying themselves immensely. He is wearing a black t-shirt
> with large white letters saying I (heart) boobs. Clearly this is a no
> brainer this guy is a craven pervert.
>
> So I make a derisive remark to my waitress about the guy in the black
> t shirt. She makes an equally derisive remark about me. She owns the
> same t shirt, the proceeds go to breast cancer research.
>
> This is not fair.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:52 pm
From: rappoccio

What's wrong with "hearting" boobs either for a cure for cancer OR for
good ol' fashioned rolls in the hay? :)

On Feb 28, 9:31 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You cannot comment on anything can you?
>
> I am sitting in my favorite sports bar eating my spicy peanut
> encrusted shrimp, when I notice this guy that is with several other
> couples enjoying themselves immensely. He is wearing a black t-shirt
> with large white letters saying I (heart) boobs. Clearly this is a no
> brainer this guy is a craven pervert.
>
> So I make a derisive remark to my waitress about the guy in the black
> t shirt. She makes an equally derisive remark about me. She owns the
> same t shirt, the proceeds go to breast cancer research.
>
> This is not fair.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PanDeism vs. Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/5967d1ccf591c110?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:31 pm
From: Dev

All other things considered, the way they were _then_ in their place
and time would not be _as_ impressive by today's standards. If
Einstein were born thirty years ago, he would be a different person
and probably be intelligent and adapt to modern society, but he wasn't
so we can only evaluate how he was then. Einstein was already kind of
thrown under the bus in his later years regarding quantum physics.
That does not mean he was stupid, but if he thought like he did then
now he would be.

On Feb 26, 8:54 pm, Knuje <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 10:09 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Everyone who lived over a hundred years ago is an idiot by today's standards.
>
> Knowledge ought not be conflated with intellect. Was Thomas Jefferson
> "an idiot by today's standards"? Voltaire? When Einstein published his
> papers on the photoelectric effect and on the equivalence of matter
> and energy in 1905, was he an idiot for today (that was over a hundred
> years ago).
>
> Will you be an idiot by the standards of 100 years from now?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:33 pm
From: Dev

Yeah. Knuje and others--quit fucking lying. Why the fuck do these
assholes think this accomplishes anything?

On Feb 26, 7:27 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not a deist and any additional thing you have to add to it DOES
> come straight from the old pooper, unless of course you actually have
> some information we don't.
>
> On Feb 26, 5:33 pm, Knuje <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're the Deist here, Dag, why don't you offer an explanation of why
> > a deity would create the Universe and then appear to abandon it?
>
> > On Feb 26, 6:47 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > the main thing thatPanDeismadds
> > > > to Deism is an explanation of why this God seems to have disappeared,
> > > > and where this God went!!
>
> > > Oh really? So where did you get this additional information besides
> > > your asshole?
>
> > > On Feb 25, 10:39 pm, Knuje <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Unless it happens to be correct. I'm sure some Newtonian physicists
> > > > thought Einstein's theory of relativity was a "more stupid" something-
> > > > or-other, adding unfounded, ahem, stuff to whatever theories it built
> > > > upon. Deism already posits a creator-God, one who set the Universe to
> > > > run in a clockwork fashion and then ceased to interact with it.
> > > >PanDeismposits the same, but really the main thing thatPanDeismadds
> > > > to Deism is an explanation of why this God seems to have disappeared,
> > > > and where this God went!!
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 7:52 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >PanDeismproposes an entity which was active and conscious in
> > > > > > creating, and thereafter inert and unconscious upon having become the
> > > > > > creation -- but this entity is not dead, merely gathering up the
> > > > > > information generated through the continued experience of the
> > > > > > Universe!!
>
> > > > > So it's basically a more stupid deism, since all it does is add
> > > > > unfounded shit to deism?
>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > On Feb 25, 4:47 pm, Knuje <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 25, 6:14 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 25, 8:49 am, Knuje <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >A central premise ofPanDeismis that the Universe was designed and
> > > > > > > >created by a thinking, planning being, to serve a purpose necessary to
> > > > > > > >that being.
>
> > > > > > > But earlier you wrote
>
> > > > > > > >God is not "God" at all, but is the Universe itself,
> > > > > > > >inert, unconscious,
>
> > > > > > > (An inert unconscious god, yeah.....sign me up for that!) You don't
> > > > > > > see the contradiction? How is this god being served by a universe that
> > > > > > > it's checked out of? And why would I bother worshiping this god that
> > > > > > > is presently as apathetic about me as I am about it?
>
> > > > > > No contradiction - to die? To sleep! To sleep, perchance to dream....
>
> > > > > >PanDeismproposes an entity which was active and conscious in
> > > > > > creating, and thereafter inert and unconscious upon having become the
> > > > > > creation -- but this entity is not dead, merely gathering up the
> > > > > > information generated through the continued experience of the
> > > > > > Universe!!
>
> > > > > > > > There is no "sin" inPanDeism, just the conviction that whatever
> > > > > > > > experiences we create are quite possibly shared with the creator, and
> > > > > > > > will quite possibly be returned to us in some form when we return to
> > > > > > > > that creator in its processing of the data generated through the
> > > > > > > > experience of the Universe.
>
> > > > > > > Essentially you're a buddhist without the godhead. You're describing
> > > > > > > nirvana. Except that there's a widely held zen belief that, if you
> > > > > > > see the buddha, you must kill the buddha. In your case, there is no
> > > > > > > buddha to kill. Instead you need to destroy the universe.
>
> > > > > > I don't need to destroy the Universe; ifPanDeismis correct then the
> > > > > > end of the Universe is inherent in the design.
>
> > > > > > > (MBWAHAHAHA!!)
>
> > > > > > > Hey, whatever works for you, as long as you don't end up killing in
> > > > > > > the name of your god, I'm down with you.
>
> > > > > > Great thing about this viewpoint is there is utterly no point in
> > > > > > killing in the name of God; no assertion that God has a preferred
> > > > > > group or disfavored behavior.... just the possibility that those
> > > > > > harmful things we do to others are things that we are in fact doing to
> > > > > > God, experiences in which we ourselves may share if the template of
> > > > > > our consciousness is preserved in the return of the Universe to its
> > > > > > prior divine state.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Challenge For Theists
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/1b0f02664affcfeb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:35 pm
From: Dev

Oh, very welcome. :)

On Feb 28, 8:05 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks dev :)
>
> On Feb 28, 8:20 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm pretty sure bonfly respects rappoccio more than he does you
> > because Sal makes all kinds of great posts and you never do. It isn't
> > a double-standard so it isn't hypocrisy. It's just a consistent,
> > rational standard.
>
> > _You_ are a hypocrite because of your faith. You apply reason (only on
> > the level of a child or dog) to some things and not others based on no
> > consistent standards. You are a threat to society. You will probably
> > complain about this assessment, but you will not refute it because it
> > is clearly true. If you reply to this post, you will reply kind of
> > like Brock or Keith or Geloso or dillan and not really address one
> > fucking word I said rationally. That's how theists are. If they say
> > _something_, it is supposed to be a refute. It doesn't matter if it
> > even applies to anything ever said by anybody in any consistent way or
> > in any logical way and it doesn't matter to them. They are a source
> > for pollution and that's all. They cannot be differentiated from other
> > pollution in that they are also, ratioanlly, a complete waste of
> > energy. Theists despise sane people for being right.
>
> > On Feb 28, 3:09 am, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 11:37 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Eat it chx .. just eat it.
>
> > > chx
> > > you're a hypocrite. i see on your *nice* thread you just give Rap a
> > > warning and here you give me the full monty. not fair.
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 7:26 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 10:24 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > No ... not good. As penance, you need to eat a pound of cow shit
> > > > > > every day for three days. Sorry Checkers, I'm trying to be fair.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > why 3 days? i did not use capital letters!!!
>
> > > > > > On Feb 28, 4:18 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 28, 3:48 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > P.S. by what you believe I mean regarding God. Just thought I should
> > > > > > > > clarify that. :)
>
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > damn, here you go and spoil it. i'll say it anyway;
>
> > > > > > > a few monts ago i was naive enough to believe i can ask an anti-nice
> > > > > > > person to be 'nice' in a debate ;))
> > > > > > > self explantory, yes!
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 6:43 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Come up with something stupider than what you believe and explain why
> > > > > > > > > it's stupider logically.
>
> > > > > > > > > Thanks. :)- 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 -

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:40 pm
From: Dev

Good point, rappy. This applies, of course, to the delusion debate as
well--the ad populum deal. If we are to strictly say Christianity is
not a delusion based on _popularity_ some questions must be addressed.
For one, we need--like you said here--a fixed number for how many
people it takes to make a belief _not_ crazy and an explanation as to
why that number is significant. We must also consider that
Christianity did not start with millions of believers, so through the
ad populum inference we could only assume that it _started_ as a
delusion--and, by this line of reasoning, simply killed its way to not
being one anymore. I hate this, because it infers that the best option
is to kill your way to sanity. I don't think this is a constructive
way to view mental illness. I don't think, in other words, that making
an illness _contagious_ is a cure for said illness.

On Feb 28, 8:06 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2:39 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 8:43 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Come up with something stupider than what you believe and explain why
> > > it's stupider logically.
>
> > > Thanks. :)
>
> > It's stupider to believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster than
> > it is to believe in Jesus the Son of God.
>
> > There is no large movement of believers in the FSM dating
> > back to antiquity that believed from its origins that the
> > FSM did miracles that even David Copperfield couldn't do.
>
> So what is the number of people that believe in the stupid idea for it
> to stop being a stupid idea and start being less stupid?

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:41 pm
From: Dev

Put that back in your pants. This isn't show and tell.

On Feb 28, 7:58 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have.. look below..
>
> On Feb 28, 9:31 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Any logic. Just say _something_ that isn't retarded, dillan. Or at
> > least try.
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:44 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > your posts..
> > > why is it stupider logically ?.. you're a hate monger.. what more
> > > logic do you need..
> > > :)
>
> > > On Feb 27, 8:43 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Come up with something stupider than what you believe and explain why
> > > > it's stupider logically.
>
> > > > Thanks. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:45 pm
From: Dev

On Feb 28, 2:41 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok.. a serious response this time.

I'll believe it when I see it.

> A similar challenge can be made on love. If you're argument is love is
> an evolutionary trait, fine, then explain to me the love for ones pet
> OVER the love for another human being.

That's not hard. If a human has a pet it has a more observably direct
role in his or her life than most other people do. It's just a bigger
part of their life. You really don't have any point here, do you? Why
am I asking--of course you don't.

> You're challenge, is like the last one, based on a false principle.

You have not established this inference.

> On Feb 27, 8:43 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Come up with something stupider than what you believe and explain why
> > it's stupider logically.
>
> > Thanks. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:46 pm
From: Dev

What's the reason for anthropomorphizing a deity? Animals better
resemble humans than fictional sky monsters, IMO.

On Feb 28, 8:15 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:05 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 3:41 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ok.. a serious response this time.
>
> > > A similar challenge can be made on love. If you're argument is love is
> > > an evolutionary trait, fine, then explain to me the love for ones pet
> > > OVER the love for another human being.
>
> > Anthropomorphizing of the dog, and considering them more as part of
> > their "in-group" versus their "out-group". Next question.
>
> What is the reason for anthropomorphizing an animal. That's what's
> illogical. As I said, in evolutionary terms, it's purely illogical to
> evolve such traits.
>
>
>
> > > You're challenge, is like the last one, based on a false principle.
>
> > > On Feb 27, 8:43 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Come up with something stupider than what you believe and explain why
> > > > it's stupider logically.
>
> > > > Thanks. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:51 pm
From: Observer

On Feb 28, 7:07 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:15 pm,Observer<mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:41 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ok.. a serious response this time.
>
> > > A similar challenge can be made on love. If you're argument is love is
> > > an evolutionary trait, fine, then explain to me the love for ones pet
> > > OVER the love for another human being.
>
> >Observer
> > I have no problem with people who love their pets more than they do
> > most people. It is your idea of love that creates a problem of this in
> > your superstitious mind.
>
> That;s good... that means you agree that Dev's challenge is based on a
> false premise.
>
> > Look at this from the encyclopedia
>
> > George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is a striking
> > example of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity in
> > fiction, in which a language known as Newspeak has trimmed and
> > supplanted Modern English. In this case, Orwell says that if humans
> > cannot form the words to express the ideas underlying a revolution,
> > then they cannot revolt. All of the theory of Newspeak is aimed at
> > eliminating such words. For example, bad has been replaced by ungood,
> > and the concept of freedom has been eliminated over time. According to
> > Nineteen Eighty-Four's appendix on Newspeak, the result of the
> > adoption of the language would be that "a heretical thought ... should
> > be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on
> > words."
>
> It's nice that you can quote a part of fiction, which as far as I can
> understand, the purpose is maintain political power through language
> manipulation.
> Problem with this is, love is an expression of an emotion. There is a
> universal understanding and an association to love. I think it's not a
> miss to say logic is less tangible than love.

Observer
I knew that you were not capable of understanding the analogy of
newspeak in reference to your pathological commitment to your
superstitious filth . Just thought I would try. Nothing works on your
dullness but a hammer.

You would not know the difference between love and a hot iron up your
ass . Your commitment your sadomasochistic superstition and your
basic stupidity will not permit.

By the by why don't you pick one of the 7,222 discussions of your love
thing to illustrate what you believe it is.

If you stick with emotion then lets deal with the fact that all
emotion is the result of the sensory perception on your
electrochemical responses to synoptic actions. Love like any other
sensation produced by chemistry is simply that ,not withstanding your
ignorance there of. If you would like to go deeper into the subject I
will be happy to oblige . There are 649 books on peptides and
emotions at the following address .

http://books.google.com/books?q=peptides+emotions&btnG=Search+Books

Psychonomist

>
> > This pretty well describes the christian predicament and the trap
> > within which you find your self.
>
> > I know that you will not understand the relevance of the above but all
> > we can do is try.
>
> > Further searching the encyclopedia we find that it offers 7,222
> > results for: love.
>
> > Pick one for your purposes.
>
> > Psychonomist
>
> > > You're challenge, is like the last one, based on a false principle.
>
> > > On Feb 27, 8:43 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Come up with something stupider than what you believe and explain why
> > > > it's stupider logically.
>
> > > > Thanks. :)

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:37 pm
From: Deidzoeb

> > > > When I run into someone who says psychiatry is a fraud but who seems
> > > > otherwise reasonable, I try to persuade them to reconsider. I have
> > > > done it before. I will surely do that again. Now who fits that
> > > > description on this group? The hypothetical mystery figure that you
> > > > cited? I still don't even know who the hell you're talking about, so I
> > > > can't be responsible for jumping all in that person's shit.
>
> > > Try being a little less clueless, and see if you still don't know who
> > > the hell I am talking about.
>
> > You finally half-ass spilled it in a post that I read after posting
> > this, after I asked you about 3 or 4 times. And you didn't say it
> > explicitly, you still dropped hints and danced around it.
>
> I gave you explicit directions in the very first posts in this and the
> other subthread.

You can't have it both ways. From the start, you presented it as if it
were hypothetical, then you think you successfully surprised me by
saying it's a [sketchy, incomplete] description of a real person. If
you're not willing to explicitly reveal who the real person is (who
you think the real person is you've described), then how do we know if
it's an accurate description of any real person?

It's also pretty shitty if you think you're respectfully hiding the
person, because you have given enough clues. You're not being discrete
or keeping the person's identity secret. At the same time there's no
successful "gotcha". Since you won't explicitly say who you mean.

If your purpose was to be polite and not specify the person you mean,
then you failed. If your purpose was to hold back the person's name so
you can draw me in to a silly statement about a hypothetical and then
spring a real person's history on me, it also failed, because we're
not exploring the real person's history. We're still dancing around
it.

That's like flipping a coin, covering the result with your hands, and
then saying, "Pay up, I win" without revealing the result. Sorry
Charlie, but you either specify exactly who it is so we can discuss
the person's history (and we can delve into how inaccurate your
description has been, how little you really know about this person) or
we can treat it as an incomplete, sketchy hypothetical situation that
is convincing to no one other than you.

> > > > Lawyers would object if they
> > > > heard amateurs trying to give legal advice to strangers on the web.
>
> > > And so would biologists when people use punctuated equilibrium as the
> > > disproof of evolution.
>
> > Notice how I'm comparing medical doctors and lawyers with> psychiatrists, topics where screwed up advice can result in death or
> > harm or getting charged with a crime. Contrast that with physicists
> > and biologists giving advice on abstract theories. Is a baby going to
> > die if someone gets the wrong advice on punctuated equilibrium? Can
> > you grasp the distinction?
>
> Can you grasp what malevolent education does to people who act upon
> it? Like treating homosexuals as the bible commands overriding
> opinions of biologists?

"malevolent education." lol. Go talk to the other version of yourself
that argues all discussion is fair game.

There is a clear difference between the fields that I gave and which
you gave.

Lawyers, medical doctors, psychiatrists, physicists and biologists
would all try to correct misinformation spread in their areas of
expertise. I don't think physicists or biologists would tell laymen or
amateurs not to avoid discussing those topics. There are no aspects of
those fields that they would tell laymen to avoid talking about. They
would just ask laymen to get it right, learn from credible sources,
and they would correct the false claims.

Lawyers, medical doctors and psychiatrists will try to correct
misinformation they come across, and then they will take the extra
step of advising unqualified people not to give out legal advice or
medical advice or psychiatric advice. Because the stakes are obviously
higher. Wile E. Coyote will not hang in mid-air for five seconds
holding up a sign just because an amateur describes the laws of
physics wrong (if Wile E. Coyote were in the real world with us and
not in his animated world).

> > > > In the case of Yates, I don't need to make an amateur diagnosis. I can
> > > > reasonably report what diagnosis was given to her by various qualified
> > > > psychiatrists.
>
> > > But all you did was read an Internet report, it is not as if you read
> > > a doctor's report.
>
> > I've read several articles about the Yates case. If you want me to
> > cite multiple sources that spell out diagnoses by multiple
> > psychiatrists who evalutated Yates, I'll do it. The internet can
> > report some things reliably when they cite their sources properly.
> > Even Wikipedia can. Your ridiculous dodges are not working.
>
> Except I am not the one who is dodging this. I said very clearly that
> it is not as if you read the doctor's report.

So a doctor can't testify in friggin court about his diagnosis and
make statements to the press -- you want us to assume that he's lying
or that the reporter got it wrong? We have to read the doctor's report
directly and we have to all be doctors in order to understand his
statements? You probably think you're making some wonderful point
about how I would demand those things, but I haven't stated that or
implied it. Keep your false dilemmas. Don't try to ascribe them to me.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:41 pm
From: Deidzoeb

On Feb 27, 3:22 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> is your wife tight as a nun ?

It brings a tear to my eye, thinking of how an atmosphere encouraging
open discussion is courageously preserved by the noble free speech
activists on this group ... so people like you can ask if my wife is
tight as a nun.

Hey, I think Dev's latest story in the Mike-on-Deidzoeb slash fiction
group involved Mike wearing a wimple. Check it out. You should
contribute some of your stories there.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:44 pm
From: Deidzoeb

On Feb 16, 6:00 pm, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:03 pm, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> > If they've forgotten to take their meds, why is a subtle reminder a
> > bad thing ?
>
> I don't think it would be. It was the spirit of the post that said to
> me, "This is not right".
>
> It was said jokingly, and slightly condescendingly.
>
> Deidzoeb spotted it for good reason.
>
> Why couldn't she have said, "From my perspective that seems like
> insanity" or "I'm worried about you Joe, I'm not qualified at this at
> all but you might want to seek some professional help, really. I hope
> you're okay."
>
> I mean let's just say that he *is* crazy.
>
> Is that how you would speak to a person that you thought needed help?
>
> Not in real life, I'm sure.
>
> She slipped, that's all. Trance isn't evil, she's just a little
> insensitive in this one area. Deidzoeb, having personal experience
> here, is not insensitive. He may come off as over-sensitive but it's a
> perspective thing.
>
> Watch, I'll say this to you.
>
> It seems like you post when you're drinking. Your posts all of a
> sudden lose tons of clarity. I don't like you but I *do* like to read
> some good points now and again. I assume that you're drinking while
> you post. I could be wrong. If you are, would you mind stopping or
> just not drinking so much?

Aw shnap.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which would you rather have, peace or happiness?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/24741a6384bc2a7c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:38 pm
From: scooter

The question should be: Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

On Feb 27, 8:39 pm, seekeroftruth <noeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to pose a question to everyone, what would you rather
> have for yourself, peace or happiness?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: One of my heroes: Richard Feynman
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/2365d793bceac1c8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:50 pm
From: rappoccio

I was rereading some quotes and statements from Dick Feynman (arguably
within the top three most intelligent people ever, and easily within
the top five), and I am just astonished with how much better he can
explain things than I can. The man is truly brilliant and a leader
among people.

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally
discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking
away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the
other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe
because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for
understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will
explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain
length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always
associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I
don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because
they have been figured out."

It seems to me that the "God Hypothesis" has continually been
shrinking further and further away from what we can interact with
(i.e. that which impacts our lives).

The "graveyard" of ideas that used to be gaps include

-How to make fire.
-Speciation.
-How stars form.
-Where the sun and moon come from.
-Gravity of the 2-body problem.
-Perturbative description of gravity.

and many others.

I think we can count off a (very few) number of things that people
routinely think that God makes an impact on our lives.

1) The origin of the universe.
2) The origin of life (natural abiogenesis).
3) Consciousness and the function of the human mind.

Can anyone else think of things that are even remotely possible to
claim that God did it rather than things we know, or at least have an
inkling about? Sincerely, I cannot. Is the above list of three things
the last in the "checklist" in which we continue to close gaps in our
knowledge? Or is there something else that we cannot explain
sufficiently that people can use to merit a divine intervention?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why did God make the snake?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/a5248bd16cb57791?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:55 pm
From: Brock Organ

On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:28 AM, Dag Yo wrote:
> Who cares if someone insults you. I pointed out exactly why my
> insults were accurate.

Its an interesting double standard. You insult me, then when I reply
back with something that is not an insult, you get mad that you aren't
having "real dialectic".

Regards,

Brock

>
> On Feb 27, 6:58 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Dag Yo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> You're an absolute fucking moron brock. If you don't have some
>>>>> original bible that has a little note in the margin that explains
>>>>> that
>>>>> it means what you're saying it means then you have absolutely no
>>>>> basis
>>>>> by which you are asserting that "death" means anything else other
>>>>> than
>>>>> literal death.
>>
>>>>> And since I know you don't have any such thing that makes you a
>>>>> LIAR.
>>>>> I don't get how liars like yourself can get through the day, it's
>>>>> absolutely amazing how little self-respect you have.
>>
>>>> Yep, someone's cranky today.
>>> Why not try a meaningful reply some day. You might find that it is
>>> actually productive to engage in a real dialectic.
>>
>> I think my reply is sufficient, to one engaging in such meaningful
>> dialectic as:
>>
>>>>> You're an absolute fucking moron brock
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>> it's
>>>>> absolutely amazing how little self-respect you have.
>>
>> In fact, I think I'm generous to respond. :)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brock
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 5:28 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:11 AM, Dag Yo wrote:
>>
>>>>> You're an absolute fucking moron brock. If you don't have some
>>>>> original bible that has a little note in the margin that explains
>>>>> that
>>>>> it means what you're saying it means then you have absolutely no
>>>>> basis
>>>>> by which you are asserting that "death" means anything else other
>>>>> than
>>>>> literal death.
>>
>>>>> And since I know you don't have any such thing that makes you a
>>>>> LIAR.
>>>>> I don't get how liars like yourself can get through the day, it's
>>>>> absolutely amazing how little self-respect you have.
>>
>>>> Yep, someone's cranky today.
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>
>>>> Brock
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> On Feb 26, 6:27 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Dag Yo wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Well, firstly, death is a separation from God. The instant they
>>>>>>>> ate
>>>>>>>> the fruit, they were separated. So God was correct.
>>>>>>> Wrong. Wrong and stupid. Death has a very specific meaning and
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> isn't that at all. If the meaning was what you claim it is then
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>> use a completely different word.
>>
>>>>>>> Don't be so fucking dumb, you shouldn't have to completely change
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> meaning of a word to make something to your liking.
>>
>>>>>> Somebody got up on the wrong side of the lexicon today ... ;0
>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>
>>>>>> Brock
>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 6:55 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Dag Yo wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
>>>>>>>>>>>> shalt
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> eat
>>>>>>>>>>>> of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
>>>>>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>>>>>> die."[1]
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we all know god lied about the apple.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No he didn't.
>>
>>>>>>>>> What part of "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
>>>>>>>>> shalt
>>>>>>>>> surely die." If God killed them that same day it would have
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> correct but that isn't the case so God lied after all.
>>
>>>>>>>> Well, firstly, death is a separation from God. The instant they
>>>>>>>> ate
>>>>>>>> the fruit, they were separated. So God was correct.
>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>
>>>>>>>> Brock
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 8:29 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:48 PM, zencycle wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 4:55 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You left out a part of the story; God had previously
>>>>>>>>>>>> provided
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge/information by which Adam and Eve could
>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully
>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>> the temptation:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
>>>>>>>>>>>> shalt
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> eat
>>>>>>>>>>>> of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
>>>>>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>>>>>> die."[1]
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we all know god lied about the apple.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No he didn't.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So now you've confirmed
>>>>>>>>>>> that your god is a liar.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No I haven't.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So he creates two people with free will and a
>>>>>>>>>>> 'snake' who tempts them with the truth, then claims he's not
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible when the defy him. Sorry brocko, sounds a bit too
>>>>>>>>>>> clinton-
>>>>>>>>>>> esque for me to follow blindly.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good, because what I said was a lot more deliberate than that.
>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brock
> >

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Practice your ACRD writing skills on this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/4b769ae3d84caac1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 7:57 pm
From: Brock Organ

On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:33 AM, bonfly wrote:
> I'm sorry rappoccio, but you swore and this is a civil thread so I
> will unilaterally ban you if you do it again.

That's the spirit! :)

Regards,

Brock

>
> On Feb 28, 1:13 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> LOL! Very funny!
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2:22 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi guys and gals (teehee, we don't have women at ACRD). Firstly, I'd
>>> like to thank Joe and Brock and my bestest friends Deidzoeb and Keith
>>> for making this the most wonderful google group thread EVER. : )
>>> Tee
>>> hee hee.
>>
>>> The !Practice your ACRD writing skills on this thread! is a great
>>> thread because we can discuss things about the most wonderful living
>>> God, Jesus, and whether or not he exists and also whether Calvinism
>>> and presuppositionalist positions are the best doctrines for an
>>> atheist to disbelieve in.
>>
>>> I want to ask you guys - what do you think the definition of "Homage"
>>> should be ? Then I want to know what the definition of "eggwhite"
>>> should if there's no egg in it. Then, I'd like to get a group of
>>> five
>>> of you together to discuss the topic "why religion is better than not
>>> being a christian."
>>
>> I define "eggwhite" to be "junk bond salespeople" and therefore all
>> people that order eggwhite omelettes are cannibals. Therefore they
>> suck. The end.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Any body swearing on this thread will be subject to a motion for
>>> censure and a five minute time out.
>>
>> Can I get a spanking instead? Oooohhhh, I just LOVE it! Give it more!
>> Yes! YES YES YES! TALK TO ME DIRTY!
>>
>> But don't swear. That's for meanies. Meanies are burning in hellfire
>> for all eternity and their souls are black and twisted, but I didn't
>> say "fuck" so I'm still being nice.
>>
>>> If the swearing is only one word,
>>> that's ok, but three words and over is too many and will be dealt
>>> with
>>> by forming a committee to decide if it was too rude or maybe not rude
>>> enough.
>>
>>> Please feel free to post your responses. Joe. is that ok to put this
>>> thread up? Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean that Catholics
>>> aren't right. After all, everyone likes the Pope except people who
>>> swear. Awwww. God bless everybody. I hope nobody is offended by
>>> anything I did or didn't say.
> >

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

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

Thursday, February 28, 2008

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links