Atheism vs Christianity: 24 new messages in 11 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* What is religion? Is Atheism not religion. - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/55a471900ed5c28b?hl=en
* Places where Christians have committed atrocities - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/65ff26c8eea45773?hl=en
* Am I Atheist? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3d95f5f5b535b49f?hl=en
* OT: WTF is Dev? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/145c72619d93b64e?hl=en
* Does it take more faith to be an Atheist? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/fe91a36024e535ee?hl=en
* Did the problems create religion? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3aef04e2e78837c5?hl=en
* Another incredibly horrible revelation about Christianity <Yawn> Where doe
it end? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/bdf41ed850521e26?hl=en
* Fulfillment? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ebdefe313b83a13f?hl=en
* New List of Sins - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/2671fcd5d95ef164?hl=en
* The Significance of Easter - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/4129bf6bf8275da1?hl=en
* Blog post I found that debunks recent NY Times article on Single Sex Schools.
- 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/89b84ebaf3d21632?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is religion? Is Atheism not religion.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/55a471900ed5c28b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 8:56 pm
From: LL

On Mar 17, 4:53 pm, WVProfessor <augus...@verizon.net> wrote:
By the way the American Atheist position is that Atheism is not a
religion.

LL: Then it has recently changed its position.

> > Takes a lot of unadulterated faith to believe that a random flux caused a
> > "big bang," out of nothing and the result is this drama being played out on
> > planet earth by sentient beings called humans. That we are here due to mere
> > chance. That life is nothing but a fortunate happenstance. That human beings
> > are, for all intents and purposes from a cosmic standpoint, an accident. All
> > due to blind, random chance and sheer, dumb luck. Yes, that takes faith.
>
> I don't see any faith in these ideas since the science of Cosmology
> says these things happened and they make sense according to the known
> laws of Physics.
>
> Religious ideas like purpose and god have no scientific support.
>
> You have to stop using mathematical logic and start using scientific
> logic.
> The second law of thermodynamics was proven by, no scientist ever
> seeing a violation.
> Atheism is similarly proven by no scientist ever seeing god. This is
> called scientific induction.
>
> By the way the American Atheist position is that Atheism is not a
> religion.
> The Humanist group that writes Free Enquiry takes the position that
> Humanism is not a religion. This is despite the contrary finding by a
> Judge. I consider the Judge to be poorly informed.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 8:59 pm
From: LL

On Mar 17, 6:39 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone seeks to understand the meaning of life, their place in it all and
> their origins. Even atheists develop concepts of reality and how things came
> to be. The universe must have some kind of cause behind it. One of the main
> themes of contention at this group is what the explanations are or might be.
> So far atheists seem to have little or nothing to offer along those lines.

LL: How about Rappoccio? Hasn't he explained how a scientist sees the
beginning of the universe? In any case, whatever his views are or
whatever the views are of any atheists--and most of them have some
view of the origins of the universe, it doesn't affect nor spring from
their atheism.
>
> On 3/17/08, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 10:47 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Takes a lot of unadulterated faith to believe that a random flux caused
> > a
> > > "big bang," out of nothing and the result is this drama being played out
> > on
> > > planet earth by sentient beings called humans. That we are here due to
> > mere
> > > chance. That life is nothing but a fortunate happenstance. That human
> > beings
> > > are, for all intents and purposes from a cosmic standpoint, an accident.
> > All
> > > due to blind, random chance and sheer, dumb luck. Yes, that takes faith.
>
> > LL: Atheists don't necessarily believe those things. You still don't
> > get it. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god--nothing else. It has
> > absolutely nothing to do with accepting the big bang, random flux,
> > chance or fortunate happenstance. Please try to get that through your
> > head. I know it's difficult.
>
> > > On 3/16/08, gemi <gm2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I posted a question that Is Atheism a religion? But I am disappointed
> > > > that no one replied with logically. According to my views, because
> > > > religion create a dogma of God and mod of believes as per Atheism also
> > > > create a anti-God dogma therefore we can say Atheism is also religion.
>
> > > > Best regards
>
> > > > GM
>
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:24 pm
From: "Keith MacNevins"

The typical atheist rejects everything that hints of the existence of
intelligent design at the beginning of the universe. They reject it solely
because they reject anything that smacks of "God."

On 3/17/08, LL <llpens@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 17, 6:39 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Everyone seeks to understand the meaning of life, their place in it all
> and
> > their origins. Even atheists develop concepts of reality and how things
> came
> > to be. The universe must have some kind of cause behind it. One of the
> main
> > themes of contention at this group is what the explanations are or might
> be.
> > So far atheists seem to have little or nothing to offer along those
> lines.
>
> LL: How about Rappoccio? Hasn't he explained how a scientist sees the
> beginning of the universe? In any case, whatever his views are or
> whatever the views are of any atheists--and most of them have some
> view of the origins of the universe, it doesn't affect nor spring from
> their atheism.
> >
> > On 3/17/08, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 17, 10:47 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Takes a lot of unadulterated faith to believe that a random flux
> caused
> > > a
> > > > "big bang," out of nothing and the result is this drama being played
> out
> > > on
> > > > planet earth by sentient beings called humans. That we are here due
> to
> > > mere
> > > > chance. That life is nothing but a fortunate happenstance. That
> human
> > > beings
> > > > are, for all intents and purposes from a cosmic standpoint, an
> accident.
> > > All
> > > > due to blind, random chance and sheer, dumb luck. Yes, that takes
> faith.
> >
> > > LL: Atheists don't necessarily believe those things. You still don't
> > > get it. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god--nothing else. It has
> > > absolutely nothing to do with accepting the big bang, random flux,
> > > chance or fortunate happenstance. Please try to get that through your
> > > head. I know it's difficult.
> >
> > > > On 3/16/08, gemi <gm2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I posted a question that Is Atheism a religion? But I am
> disappointed
> > > > > that no one replied with logically. According to my views, because
> > > > > religion create a dogma of God and mod of believes as per Atheism
> also
> > > > > create a anti-God dogma therefore we can say Atheism is also
> religion.
> >
> > > > > Best regards
> >
> > > > > GM
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Ambassador From Hell
> >
> > --
> > Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

--
Ambassador From Hell

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Places where Christians have committed atrocities
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/65ff26c8eea45773?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:17 pm
From: scooter

On Mar 17, 10:47 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:14 PM, scooter wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 9:33 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> > > "I believe the Bible is objectively true" refers to the
> >>>>> "propositions"
> >>>>> > > of the Bible as you have stated on more than one occasion.
> >>>>> That is to
> >>>>> > > say "everything" in the Bible. Therefore, "I believe the
> >>>>> Bible
> >>>>> is
>
> >>>>> > > objectively true" does not specify any individual objective
> >>>>> truth
> >>>>> > > contained in the "propositions" of the Bible. So, you have
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> been
> >>>>> > > careful with your words. Specifically, what is objectively
> >>>>> true from
> >>>>> > > the Bible?
>
> >>>>> > Well, you've answered yourself:
>
> >>>>> And, you have not answered a simple question: What, specifically,
> >>>>> is
>
> >>>>> objectively true from the Bible?
>
> >>>> I've answered your objection, and thats worth noting at this point.
>
> >>> I have no objection. I asked a question: What, specifically, is
> >>> objectively true from the Bible? What's worth noting at this point is
> >>> that you havn't answered the question.
>
> >> Actually, the exchange started:
>
> > Again, the question is simple: What, specifically, is objectively true
> > from the Bible?
>
> As you indicated:

Again, the question is simple: What, specifically, is objectively true
from the Bible?

>
> ""I beleive the Bible is objectively true" does not specify any
> individual objective truth. Which means there are no objective truths
> in the Bible."

Following your logic.

>
>
>
> >> > "I beleive the Bible is objectively true" does not specify any
> >> > individual objective truth.
>
> >> I noted: Of course it does.
>
> > And, you're wrong. "I believe the Bible is objectively true" refers to
> > the "propositions" of the Bible as you have stated on more than one
> > occasion. That is to say "everything" in the Bible.
>
> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
> knowledge from which we derive our first principles that we use to make
> value judgments.

It is a source of knowledge that was written by humans. Humans
defining their reality. That makes them existentialists.

>
> > Therefore, "I
> > believe the Bible is objectively true" does not specify any individual
> > objective truth contained in the "propositions" of the Bible. So, you
> > have not been careful with your words.
>
> Of course I've been clear and concise.

You have been vague and ambiguous just like everyone else on this
board recognizes.

>
> > Specifically, what is
> > objectively true from the Bible?
>
> >> > Which means there are no objective truths
> >> > in the Bible.
>
> >> I noted: No it doesn't.
>
> > Its your logic.
>
> Its not my position.

Then you may retract your statement: "Everything Mugabe (a Roman
Catholic) has done. "everything" does not specify any individual
atrocity, or set of atrocities. Which means that there are no
atrocities listed in this thread for:"

Transposed: "[everything in]the Bible" does not specify any individual
proposition of objective truth within the Bible. Which means that
there are no objective truths listed in the Bible."

>
> >>>>>>> "I believe the Bible is objectively true" refers to the
> >>>>>>> "propositions"
> >>>>> > > of the Bible as you have stated on more than one occasion.
>
> >>>>> > Of course, I do disagree with your analysis that I've not been
> >>>>> careful
> >>>>> > with my words. My responses have been chosen with care to
> >>>>> provide the
> >>>>> > best and clearest answer that I can to inquiries into my
> >>>>> position.
>
> >>>>> What you disagree with is irrelevant. Your answers are ambiguous
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> redundant and generally do not follow from queries.
>
> >>>> Their really good answers. You confuse your disagreement with them
> >>>> with their clear and fine characteristics. ;0
>
> >>> You're defining reality through your very human terms. That makes you
> >>> an existentialist by your own definition. Re: "humans define their
> >>> own
> >>> reality"
>
> >> No I take great pains to show that I don't subscribe to existential
> >> premises. As I've responded previously:
>
> > What you take great pains to do is to deny that you subscribe to
> > existentialism.
>
> Thank you for noticing.
>
> > Your denials do not alter the fact that you do employ
> > existentialism to formulate your convoluted beliefs.
>
> So you presume. But you merely beg the question.

I do not presume. I note as fact. Re: "I believe the Bible is
objectively true" is you, Brock, a human, defining your own reality.
That makes you an existentialist.

>
> >> > As we all know, Crock of Shit Organ frequently relies on this
> >> document
> >> > and presents it as "objective truth"
>
> >> More accurately:
>
> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true

Thats an existential premise precisely because you, Brock a human, are
defining your own reality.

>
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs

More accurately, the veracity of the Bible is independent of your
beliefs. Of course, that conflicts with 1) because it renders your
beliefs irrelevant.

>
> > By your own definition, you are an
> > existentialist.
>
> Not by my definition.

Irrelevant. Its the definition you use: "humans define their own
reality"

>
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > More accurately, the veracity of the Bible is independent of your
> > beliefs. Of course, that conflicts with 1) because it renders your
> > beliefs irrelevant.
>
> No, more accurately:
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true

Thats an existential premise precisely because you, Brock a human, are
defining your own reality.

> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs

More accurately, the veracity of the Bible is independent of your
beliefs. Of course, that conflicts with 1) because it renders your
beliefs irrelevant.

>
> >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > More accurately:
>
> > "The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of
> > faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition."
>
> My position is:
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible

Your position is irrelevant.

"The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of
faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith

>
> >> > Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> >> > other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> >> > "existential premises".
>
> >> Not all other argumentation. Simply those arguments that do rely on
> >> existential premises. I have articulated positions against many of
> >> the
> >> classic existential positions, and have related how positions in the
> >> forum relate to the classical positions, including:
>
> >> * existence precedes essence
>
> > Prove it
>
> I'm happy to note hear that I don't articulate existential premises.

What you are happy about is irrelevant. You subscribe to existential
premises when you, Brock , a human, proclaim "I beleive the Bible is
objectively true". Re: Your criterion for existentialism "humans
define their own reality"

>
> >> * humans define their own reality
>
> > Including you. Re: I beleive the Bible is objectively true" is you,
> > Brock, a human, defining your own reality.
>
> Prove it.

I just did. Re: "I beleive the Bible is objectively true" is you,
Brock, a human, defining your own reality.

>
> >> * man is the measure of all things
>
> > Yet, you, a man, are measuring the objective truth of the Bible. Re:
> > "I beleive the Bible is objectively true"
>
> I think you overstate.

What you think is irrelevant. What you do is define your reality via
existential premises. What you do is measure the veracity of the Bible
using existential premises when you proclaim " I beleive the Bible is
objectively true"

>
> >> * God is dead
>
> > More precisely, God never existed
>
> That is not a position I subscribe to. It is a position I disagree
> with.

Irrelevant.

>
> >> * existentialism is a humanism
>
> > Irrelevant
>
> Very relevant. First of all, it shows that I do not subscribe to
> existential premises.

It does no such thing. You define your human reality when you proclaim
"I beleive the Bible is objectively true". That makes you an
existentialist.

>
> >>>>> > Its not because of the limitations of my words that you don't
> >>>>> agree
> >>>>> > with my position.
>
> >>>>> This is a perfect example. You are not following any semblance of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> subject. That is to say, Re: "* humans define their own reality "
> >>>>> and
>
> >>>>> "man is the measure of all things"
>
> >>>>> "Humans define their own reality" and "measuring" the veracity of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> Bible is precisely what you are doing here: 1) " I believe the
> >>>>> Bible
> >>>>> is objectively true"
>
> >>>> No its not. (This would be that golden hammer thing i've mentioned
> >>>> before)
>
> >>> Irrelevant. You are defining your reality by proclaiming: " I beleive
> >>> the Bible is objectively true" That makes you an existentialist.
>
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > This renders 1) irrelevant.
>
> It renders 1) as:
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true

Thats an existential premise precisely because you, Brock a human,
are
defining your own reality. By your own definition, you are an
existentialist.

>
> and I believe it is relevant.

And, you further define that you beleive it is relevant. You continue
subscribing to existentialism as an alchoholic drinks and denies he's
an alchoholic.

>
> >>>>> That makes you an existentialist and a hypocrit.
>
> >>>> I do not subscribe to existential premises.
>
> >>> Irrelevant. You employ them regardless of your protestations. I.E.,
> >>> what you beleive and what is true is independent of eachother.
>
> >> Begging the question.
>
> > Irrelevant. This isn't a philisophical question. Its a statement of
> > fact.
>
> It is relevant. It outlines a very simple and clear positional
> statement:

What is relevant is that you subscribe to existentialism.

>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true

Thats an existential premise precisely because you, Brock a human,
are
defining your own reality. By your own definition, you are an
existentialist.

> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > You subscribe to existentialism by proclaiming: "I beleive the
> > Bible is objectively true"
>
> Believing the Bible to be objectively true does not subscribe me to
> existentialism.

It does. You are defining your reality as per "humans define their own
reality"

>
> > because Brock is a human and he is defining
> > his own relaity.
>
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> >>>>>>> > > > > Which means there are no objective truths
> >>>>> > > > > > > in the Bible.
>
> >>>>> > > > > > No it doesn't.
>
> >>>>> > > > > Following your logic, it does. Re: ""everything" does
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> specify any
>
> >>>>> > > > > individual atrocity, or set of atrocities. Which means
> >>>>> that there are
> >>>>> > > > > no atrocities listed..."
>
> >>>>> > > > That is not logic I've articulated, nor do I believe your
> >>>>> presentation
> >>>>> > > > of it applies.
>
> >>>>> > > Thats your quote. So, you have "articulated" that very
> >>>>> premise.
>
> >>>>> > Not my logic. :)
>
> >>>>> Its a direct quote. You can always retract your argument.
>
> >>>> I have not articulated:
>
> >>>> "Which means there are no objective truths in the Bible."
>
> >>> You have articulated ""everything" does not specify any individual
> >>> atrocity, or set of atrocities. Which means that there are no
> >>> atrocities listed..."
>
> >> I have not articulated:
>
> >> "Which means there are no objective truths in the Bible."
>
> >>> Transposing that premise: "[everything in]the Bible" does not specify
> >>> any individual proposition of objective truth within the Bible. Which
> >>> means that there are no objective truths listed in the Bible.
>
> >> In response to the premise:
>
> >> > "Everything Mugabe (a Roman Catholic) has done."
>
> >> I replied to OP:
>
> > Here it comes. The part where you try and change the subject or
> > otherwise attempt to wiggle out of your own existential BS.
>
> >> "I believe your answer does not provide specific information regarding
> >> any atrocities that would support the eristic premise of this thread."
>
> > Yep, I was right.
>
> > Irrelevant. The quote in question is this: ""everything" does not
> > specify any individual atrocity, or set of atrocities. Which means
> > that there are no atrocities listed..." Note: This is *your* premise.
>
> My premise, with context to the earlier claims is:
>
> > > > > 257 Zimbabwe
> > > > Please list the atrocities.
> > > Everything Mugabe (a Roman Catholic) has done.
> > "everything" does not specify any individual atrocity, or set of
> > atrocities. Which means that there are no atrocities listed in this
> > thread for:
> >
> > 257 Zimbabwe
>
>
>
> > Transposed: "[everything in]the Bible" does not specify any individual
> > proposition of objective truth within the Bible. Which means that
> > there are no objective truths listed in the Bible."
>
> Thats not what it means. And that is not my position:

You can always retract your statement, Mr. Existentialist. Otherwise:
Transposed: "[everything in]the Bible" does not specify any individual
proposition of objective truth within the Bible. Which means that
there are no objective truths listed in the Bible."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Am I Atheist?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3d95f5f5b535b49f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:17 pm
From: gemi

Am I thesit if i dont take interst to prove existing or not existing
of god? But I take interest how to work for betterment of my world and
also how to improve equal distribution of wealth. Why I wast my time.

Best Regards

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:28 pm
From: Simpleton

On Mar 17, 9:17 pm, gemi <gm2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I thesit if i dont take interst to prove existing or not existing
> of god? But I take interest how to work for betterment of my world and
> also how to improve equal distribution of wealth. Why I wast my time.
>
> Best Regards
>
> GM

You might be a Yezidi.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:21 pm
From: Observer

Observer

A communist huh? What kind of a moron does it take to think that
redistribution of wealth is an answer to anything? How about education
of our children to include , scientific data, scientific method , and
critical thought.? How about the end of superstitious filth? To feed
the world you don't give everyone a fish you teach everyone to fish.

Psychonomist

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:42 pm
From: random

The only relevant question to find out if you are an atheist, is "do
you believe in God, god, or gods?"

Beyond that, you can also be countless of other things, both religious
related and secular.

On Mar 18, 6:17 am, gemi <gm2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I thesit if i dont take interst to prove existing or not existing
> of god? But I take interest how to work for betterment of my world and
> also how to improve equal distribution of wealth. Why I wast my time.
>
> Best Regards
>
> GM

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: WTF is Dev?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/145c72619d93b64e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:26 pm
From: Dag Yo

You know I never looked at this thread before because I've always read
WTF to mean "what the fuck" rather than "where", and then I was just
thinking where the heck is dev and it struck me I haven't seen him
post for a bit.

On Mar 15, 11:56 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> SSIA

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:31 pm
From: Iamthesonofthedeviliam

On Mar 17, 9:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:36 pm, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 17, 7:04 pm, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 17, 3:36 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thr...
> > > > > > see the 7th paragraph
>
> > > > > > I certainly didn't mean to seriously imply that
> > > > > > Dev should be in prison, or that I would want
> > > > > > anything bad to happen to him. Hopefully
> > > > > > his comments are also meant to be
> > > > > > humorous, just in a very dark way.
>
> > > > > Still waiting for you to actually refute Dev's position in that
> > > > > thread.
>
> > > > > Or can't you?
>
> > > > Do you support it?
>
> > > Can you refute Dev's position Mike?
>
> > > You like to slink around and infer things but you have yet to
> > > successfully refute anything Dev has said.
>
> > > Feel free to do so now, if you can.
>
> > Trance I'm disappointed in you as a person that you don't love your
> > friend Dev enough to help him AND DISAGREE WITH HIM at times.
>
> > Read Drafterman's, Blusci's AND even Walt's responses.
>
> > What are you protecting him from, growth?
>
> Still waiting for a refutation Mike.
>

Keep waiting. No one is picking on him. People debate. He's often
right.

I'll *just* say that enough about that post was said in the first
response.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > On Mar 17, 2:58 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2:48 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > To find people who express a desire to see others
> > > > > > > > die, look for signs that say PRISON.
>
> > > > > > > Wow, Why so defensive?
>
> > > > > > > Did something he said touch base with you?
>
> > > > > > > Has criticizing the religious and expressing ones opinions now become
> > > > > > > something we're not supposed to do on AvC?
>
> > > > > > > Do you even know him well enough to come to such an unwarranted
> > > > > > > conclusion?
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2:30 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 3:56 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > SSIA
>
> > > > > > > > > I miss him and we need his vibrant, perceptive posts to liven this
> > > > > > > > > place up.
>
> > > > > > > > > Dev, WTF are you?- 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 -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:56 pm
From: Observer

On Mar 17, 9:26 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You know I never looked at this thread before because I've always read
> WTF to mean "what the fuck" rather than "where", and then I was just
> thinking where the heck is dev and it struck me I haven't seen him
> post for a bit.

Observer

Where ever you are, Dev, and what ever your circumstance, I wish you
well . Each day we all miss your commentary and strong wit.

Your absence is indeed our loss.

Regards

Psychonomist

>
> On Mar 15, 11:56 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > SSIA

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does it take more faith to be an Atheist?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/fe91a36024e535ee?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:27 pm
From: Simpleton

On Mar 17, 8:35 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
> Some Christians have asked me before, does it take more faith to be an
> Atheist?
>

I'd say no, since it takes no faith to lack belief in gods, so no
faith is required in being an atheist.

> I think it takes more courage.

To live as one in a religious society, perhaps. But it really depends
on the society.

> When you face problems in life and you
> know there is no big daddy that is going to come in and save you.

That is really no different for atheists or Christians, other than
Christians claiming to know.

> I
> think we take more responsibility for happens to us and what we do in
> life.

Most atheists I know fall into this category, and actually most
Christians I know do as well.

> I certainly appreciate the little things more as an Atheist,
> because I know how precious they are and how lucky we are to have
> them.
>
> If nothing else, I have become a better driver!!! I need to watch the
> road more, since angels aren't watching over me.
>

I am. If you do not believe me, look in the rear view mirror once in
a while.

> Lana

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 18 2008 12:08 am
From: random

On Mar 18, 5:35 am, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
> Some Christians have asked me before, does it take more faith to be an
> Atheist?
>

This question is so simple, it can be answered only by the definition
of the word "atheist".
Since atheist is a lack of belief in something without a proof, then
without doubt, it requires less faith.

The only reason the question is repeatedly raised, is to find a way to
justify faith without proofs.

> I think it takes more courage. When you face problems in life and you
> know there is no big daddy that is going to come in and save you. I
> think we take more responsibility for happens to us and what we do in
> life. I certainly appreciate the little things more as an Atheist,
> because I know how precious they are and how lucky we are to have
> them.
>

It might take courage if you were raised as a Theist, and you want to
change your life (which also explains the attraction in religions).
But as someone who was raised in a more or less atheistic home, I can
tell you that it doesn't require anything special.

f the culture around you is mostly Theistic, it might require courage
to publicly admit you are an atheist, but not to actually be one.

> If nothing else, I have become a better driver!!! I need to watch the
> road more, since angels aren't watching over me.
>
> Lana

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did the problems create religion?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3aef04e2e78837c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:50 pm
From: Eris

Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

I wanna use you and abuse you
I wanna know what's inside you
(Whispering) Hold your head up, movin' on
Keep your head up, movin' on
Hold your head up, movin' on
Keep your head up, movin' on
Hold your head up, movin' on
Keep your head up, movin' on
Movin' on!

I'm gonna use you and abuse you
I'm gonna know what's inside
Gonna use you and abuse you
I'm gonna know what's inside you

On Mar 17, 11:04 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
> Eris,
>
> I don't believe in a "good and bad" "right and wrong" mentality. I
> know I could get a lot of feedback from people with some extreme
> examples of horrific evens. Its the dualistic mind set that I am
> talking about. I try to view things from an organism central point of
> view. We are single organisms. There are things in the environment
> that my benefit a single person, maybe neutral to him/her or they may
> harm him/her. Some times another organisms is what can benefit or harm
> the person. Some times we benefit or harm others. One really can't put
> things into neat and tidy "good" and "bad" boxes. Life isn't that
> clear cut.
>
> Lana
>
> On Mar 16, 10:52 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:> I don't think women or men are good or bad, they just have a job to
> > do, reproduce and bring the offspring to maturity. I think males and
> > females are very good at the jobs they are assigned.
> > I have always felt religion was a tool used by females and some males
> > to control men. Lots of rules and lots of like minded people to
> > enforce the rules.
>
> > Having sex with a female you are not mated to, seems to be the number
> > one rule.
> > Looking at and lusting for other women, a close second.
>
> > Just by chance? I think not.
>
> > On Mar 16, 10:58 am, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Being an ex-fundamentalist and raised in this enviroment, I have a
> > > tendancy to take the free will side of a the "free-will vs.
> > > predestination" debate. However, switching over to the atheist, I
> > > think I am getting confused on the concepts of choice in our actions.
>
> > > I think we have a choices and make choices, however, our natural
> > > animal instincts and our environment will play a role in how we act.
> > > We all act one way at work, then how we act with our friends and such.
> > > There are times when we are "cornered" or accusted and we will REact
> > > out of fear or anger.
>
> > > You are right, Lawrey. It is complecated! I don't think there is any
> > > one answer, or one variable = one response, type of answer for
> > > behaviors. So many things should be taken into account with behavior
> > > predictions and choice.
>
> > > Lana
>
> > > On Mar 15, 3:47 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Lana,
>
> > > > Can you define what you mean by free-will. When you say
> > > > "many atheists don't believe in a free will." That's not quite
> > > > true and needs explaining and understanding for instance
> > > > the constraints that nature and societies place on us, that
> > > > restrict at every twist and turn our ability to exert an entirely
> > > > free will. Our ability to exert a free will, is defined by all
> > > > sorts of quite simple restraints like emotion. One simple
> > > > example: your best friend comes to visit with his obnoxious
> > > > little son. If you could exert your free will you might say all
> > > > manner of things when the boy plays up, but your will is
> > > > tempered by emotional feelings and the wish not to hurt
> > > > the feelings of your best friend. Consideration for others,
> > > > for practical reasons, for the laws of the land, for respect,
> > > > for emotion, for society, for and easy life, for politics.
> > > > Almost anything and everything, is capable of robbing us
> > > > of exerting our free will and does. So much so we do
> > > > have to ask do we in fact have a free will? Consider!
>
> > > > What is a will? A mental faculty by which we deliberately
> > > > choose or decide upon for a course of action; A
> > > > disposition to exercise this faculty; determination; will to
> > > > win; an intention; free discretion; inclination; to move
> > > > about at will; the power to exert over conflicting mental
> > > > and emotional tendencies and arrive at one's own
> > > > decision; importantly to resist: Considering all this and
> > > > more, including the power of your conscience over your
> > > > conscious actions and sub-consious will which works
> > > > against your will. Do we exercise free-will?
> > > > Circumstance and ability always interferes with will.
> > > > I will if I can and all things considered, after all I have
> > > > a will don't I? Well do I?
> > > > Over simplified for understanding, but you get my drift?
> > > > It's far more complicated really.
>
> > > > On Mar 14, 11:41 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If we do not have free will, whose will do we have?
>
> > > > > I have heard many atheists say they don't believe in "free will". This
> > > > > confuses me a bit. I think we do to some degree, although there are
> > > > > certian general behavioral patterns that are "hardwired".
>
> > > > > Could some of the atheists elaborate on what is driving us? If you
> > > > > don't believe in free will at all, what do we have instead?
>
> > > > > Lana
>
> > > > > On Mar 14, 11:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 14, 12:03 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > you can have it or live it no one force you to do anything. you have a
> > > > > > > free will tha your gift use it wisly.
>
> > > > > > We have free will? Prove it.
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 12, 4:09 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > daffy,
>
> > > > > > > > I am not blaming people generally, nor any one person, I am
> > > > > > > > blaming religion and the beliefs they inculcate into their believers.
>
> > > > > > > > We as people are or course to blame for allowing religion to take
> > > > > > > > such a hold and to continue to support it, by not stopping it.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 3:48 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > We people we never blame our self for our problems, that is the ego at
> > > > > > > > > work find somebody someone something but me I THINK THAT YOUR ANSWER.
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2:58 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Lana,
>
> > > > > > > > > > Intitially you might jump at this, but the correct and direct
> > > > > > > > > > answer to your question: "Did the problems create religion?"
> > > > > > > > > > Is most decidedly, YES! That needs explaining.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It was ignorance and lack of knowledge in early pagan times,
> > > > > > > > > > according to our earliest records of philosophical history and
> > > > > > > > > > the need to find answers to what was for them in that day,
> > > > > > > > > > difficult questions, especially in that day the reasons for
> > > > > > > > > > natural catasrophies; also questions evolved around all sorts
> > > > > > > > > > of important questions such as, (as Immanuel Kant tells us,)
> > > > > > > > > > "What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?"
> > > > > > > > > > A theoretical question a practical question and a speculative
> > > > > > > > > > one; on the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves,
> > > > > > > > > > and our relation to it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > These questions and more have been thought over from
> > > > > > > > > > time to time, throughout all recorded time. The answers
> > > > > > > > > > at first hardly analytical rather more intuitive in outcome,
> > > > > > > > > > it being far easier to suggest superficially plausible
> > > > > > > > > > answers, rather than answers based on sound positive
> > > > > > > > > > reason. Be that as it may, intuitive answers to difficult
> > > > > > > > > > questions resulted in the first steps, which sufficed to
> > > > > > > > > > give the first sense of the meaning of life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > For them in that day the simplest answers had to be that
> > > > > > > > > > some mysterious gods were responsible and they came
> > > > > > > > > > to believe that anything that could not be explained had
> > > > > > > > > > to be the result of a gods involvement.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Interest in theology was concerned at first with the destiny
> > > > > > > > > > of the individual, but in time it resulted in a more
> > > > > > > > > > independent appreciation of the goodness of a mysterious
> > > > > > > > > > divine being, and finally, as a sense of communion with a
> > > > > > > > > > personal closeness to some form of a god into which the
> > > > > > > > > > divine being had developed.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The Babylonians changed this style of Egyptian thinking
> > > > > > > > > > with the question of the origin of things, also stories of a
> > > > > > > > > > disastrous flood and the formulation of codes of law for
> > > > > > > > > > the regulation of human relations.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Hebrew written literature started to appear in the middle
> > > > > > > > > > of the eighth century B.C. it started with religiously minded
> > > > > > > > > > men, very much like the preachers of today, who looked on
> > > > > > > > > > religion as a means to control the masses and were people
> > > > > > > > > > seeking to know the will of their gods they had come to
> > > > > > > > > > believe in and trying to make something of the meaning of
> > > > > > > > > > history and devising codes and principles of ethical conduct.
>
> > > > > > > > > > They saw in their own traditions and peoples fine examples
> > > > > > > > > > of character, which, they thought, should inspire future
> > > > > > > > > > generations. It was these same writers who laid out the
> > > > > > > > > > guiding principles of social justice and formulated the idea
> > > > > > > > > > of the one benevolent deity, a god, in relation to man. They
> > > > > > > > > > taught that people should come to look upon all the
> > > > > > > > > > sufferings of man as a sort of punishment from the gods,
> > > > > > > > > > for all man's sin. Gods whom they should fear to anger.
>
> > > > > > > > > > These then were the beginnings of religion in polytheism,
> > > > > > > > > > (many gods) and it was about now toward 1375 B.C. that
> > > > > > > > > > the first single deity and monotheism (one god) creator of
> > > > > > > > > > all things was muted by the ruler Amenhotep IV who
> > > > > > > > > > changed his name to Arkhenaton in reverence to the god
> > > > > > > > > > he chose and named as Aton, who was represented by
> > > > > > > > > > the sun's disc.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It was the Hebrews who took up the idea of a single deity
> > > > > > > > > > and after association with Zoroasterism provided an
> > > > > > > > > > opposer called satan copying in a sense zoroasterism
> > > > > > > > > > and its dualistic approach to all things; for good to prevail
> > > > > > > > > > there must be evil, for dark...light...everything has an
> > > > > > > > > > opposite so god must have his devil.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Reading through history from this time on the
> > > > > > > > > > establishing of religion and religious groups were the
> > > > > > > > > > cause of most strife, tribe against religious tribe and
> > > > > > > > > > religious thought against religious thought. Some of the
> > > > > > > > > > most outrageous inhumanity was caused by the religion
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:57 pm
From: Lana

I love cheesy 80's music!

Lana

On Mar 17, 11:50 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sweet dreams are made of this
> Who am I to disagree?
> Travel the world and the seven seas
> Everybody's looking for something
> Some of them want to use you
> Some of them want to get used by you
> Some of them want to abuse you
> Some of them want to be abused
>
> Sweet dreams are made of this
> Who am I to disagree?
> Travel the world and the seven seas
> Everybody's looking for something
> Some of them want to use you
> Some of them want to get used by you
> Some of them want to abuse you
> Some of them want to be abused
>
> I wanna use you and abuse you
> I wanna know what's inside you
> (Whispering) Hold your head up, movin' on
> Keep your head up, movin' on
> Hold your head up, movin' on
> Keep your head up, movin' on
> Hold your head up, movin' on
> Keep your head up, movin' on
> Movin' on!
>
> Sweet dreams are made of this
> Who am I to disagree?
> Travel the world and the seven seas
> Everybody's looking for something
> Some of them want to use you
> Some of them want to get used by you
> Some of them want to abuse you
> Some of them want to be abused
>
> I'm gonna use you and abuse you
> I'm gonna know what's inside
> Gonna use you and abuse you
> I'm gonna know what's inside you
>
> On Mar 17, 11:04 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Eris,
>
> > I don't believe in a "good and bad" "right and wrong" mentality. I
> > know I could get a lot of feedback from people with some extreme
> > examples of horrific evens. Its the dualistic mind set that I am
> > talking about. I try to view things from an organism central point of
> > view. We are single organisms. There are things in the environment
> > that my benefit a single person, maybe neutral to him/her or they may
> > harm him/her. Some times another organisms is what can benefit or harm
> > the person. Some times we benefit or harm others. One really can't put
> > things into neat and tidy "good" and "bad" boxes. Life isn't that
> > clear cut.
>
> > Lana
>
> > On Mar 16, 10:52 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:> I don't think women or men are good or bad, they just have a job to
> > > do, reproduce and bring the offspring to maturity. I think males and
> > > females are very good at the jobs they are assigned.
> > > I have always felt religion was a tool used by females and some males
> > > to control men. Lots of rules and lots of like minded people to
> > > enforce the rules.
>
> > > Having sex with a female you are not mated to, seems to be the number
> > > one rule.
> > > Looking at and lusting for other women, a close second.
>
> > > Just by chance? I think not.
>
> > > On Mar 16, 10:58 am, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Being an ex-fundamentalist and raised in this enviroment, I have a
> > > > tendancy to take the free will side of a the "free-will vs.
> > > > predestination" debate. However, switching over to the atheist, I
> > > > think I am getting confused on the concepts of choice in our actions.
>
> > > > I think we have a choices and make choices, however, our natural
> > > > animal instincts and our environment will play a role in how we act.
> > > > We all act one way at work, then how we act with our friends and such.
> > > > There are times when we are "cornered" or accusted and we will REact
> > > > out of fear or anger.
>
> > > > You are right, Lawrey. It is complecated! I don't think there is any
> > > > one answer, or one variable = one response, type of answer for
> > > > behaviors. So many things should be taken into account with behavior
> > > > predictions and choice.
>
> > > > Lana
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 3:47 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Lana,
>
> > > > > Can you define what you mean by free-will. When you say
> > > > > "many atheists don't believe in a free will." That's not quite
> > > > > true and needs explaining and understanding for instance
> > > > > the constraints that nature and societies place on us, that
> > > > > restrict at every twist and turn our ability to exert an entirely
> > > > > free will. Our ability to exert a free will, is defined by all
> > > > > sorts of quite simple restraints like emotion. One simple
> > > > > example: your best friend comes to visit with his obnoxious
> > > > > little son. If you could exert your free will you might say all
> > > > > manner of things when the boy plays up, but your will is
> > > > > tempered by emotional feelings and the wish not to hurt
> > > > > the feelings of your best friend. Consideration for others,
> > > > > for practical reasons, for the laws of the land, for respect,
> > > > > for emotion, for society, for and easy life, for politics.
> > > > > Almost anything and everything, is capable of robbing us
> > > > > of exerting our free will and does. So much so we do
> > > > > have to ask do we in fact have a free will? Consider!
>
> > > > > What is a will? A mental faculty by which we deliberately
> > > > > choose or decide upon for a course of action; A
> > > > > disposition to exercise this faculty; determination; will to
> > > > > win; an intention; free discretion; inclination; to move
> > > > > about at will; the power to exert over conflicting mental
> > > > > and emotional tendencies and arrive at one's own
> > > > > decision; importantly to resist: Considering all this and
> > > > > more, including the power of your conscience over your
> > > > > conscious actions and sub-consious will which works
> > > > > against your will. Do we exercise free-will?
> > > > > Circumstance and ability always interferes with will.
> > > > > I will if I can and all things considered, after all I have
> > > > > a will don't I? Well do I?
> > > > > Over simplified for understanding, but you get my drift?
> > > > > It's far more complicated really.
>
> > > > > On Mar 14, 11:41 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > If we do not have free will, whose will do we have?
>
> > > > > > I have heard many atheists say they don't believe in "free will". This
> > > > > > confuses me a bit. I think we do to some degree, although there are
> > > > > > certian general behavioral patterns that are "hardwired".
>
> > > > > > Could some of the atheists elaborate on what is driving us? If you
> > > > > > don't believe in free will at all, what do we have instead?
>
> > > > > > Lana
>
> > > > > > On Mar 14, 11:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 14, 12:03 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > you can have it or live it no one force you to do anything. you have a
> > > > > > > > free will tha your gift use it wisly.
>
> > > > > > > We have free will? Prove it.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 4:09 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > daffy,
>
> > > > > > > > > I am not blaming people generally, nor any one person, I am
> > > > > > > > > blaming religion and the beliefs they inculcate into their believers.
>
> > > > > > > > > We as people are or course to blame for allowing religion to take
> > > > > > > > > such a hold and to continue to support it, by not stopping it.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 3:48 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > We people we never blame our self for our problems, that is the ego at
> > > > > > > > > > work find somebody someone something but me I THINK THAT YOUR ANSWER.
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2:58 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Lana,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Intitially you might jump at this, but the correct and direct
> > > > > > > > > > > answer to your question: "Did the problems create religion?"
> > > > > > > > > > > Is most decidedly, YES! That needs explaining.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It was ignorance and lack of knowledge in early pagan times,
> > > > > > > > > > > according to our earliest records of philosophical history and
> > > > > > > > > > > the need to find answers to what was for them in that day,
> > > > > > > > > > > difficult questions, especially in that day the reasons for
> > > > > > > > > > > natural catasrophies; also questions evolved around all sorts
> > > > > > > > > > > of important questions such as, (as Immanuel Kant tells us,)
> > > > > > > > > > > "What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?"
> > > > > > > > > > > A theoretical question a practical question and a speculative
> > > > > > > > > > > one; on the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves,
> > > > > > > > > > > and our relation to it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > These questions and more have been thought over from
> > > > > > > > > > > time to time, throughout all recorded time. The answers
> > > > > > > > > > > at first hardly analytical rather more intuitive in outcome,
> > > > > > > > > > > it being far easier to suggest superficially plausible
> > > > > > > > > > > answers, rather than answers based on sound positive
> > > > > > > > > > > reason. Be that as it may, intuitive answers to difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > questions resulted in the first steps, which sufficed to
> > > > > > > > > > > give the first sense of the meaning of life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > For them in that day the simplest answers had to be that
> > > > > > > > > > > some mysterious gods were responsible and they came
> > > > > > > > > > > to believe that anything that could not be explained had
> > > > > > > > > > > to be the result of a gods involvement.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Interest in theology was concerned at first with the destiny
> > > > > > > > > > > of the individual, but in time it resulted in a more
> > > > > > > > > > > independent appreciation of the goodness of a mysterious
> > > > > > > > > > > divine being, and finally, as a sense of communion with a
> > > > > > > > > > > personal closeness to some form of a god into which the
> > > > > > > > > > > divine being had developed.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The Babylonians changed this style of Egyptian thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > with the question of the origin of things, also stories of a
> > > > > > > > > > > disastrous flood and the formulation of codes of law for
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 10:18 pm
From: Dag Yo

Hey me too.

btw, i've been listening to this all day, its fantastic.
http://rapidshare.de/files/38777028/infamia_italo_disco_collection.rar.html

On Mar 17, 8:57 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
> I love cheesy 80's music!
>
> Lana
>
> On Mar 17, 11:50 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sweet dreams are made of this
> > Who am I to disagree?
> > Travel the world and the seven seas
> > Everybody's looking for something
> > Some of them want to use you
> > Some of them want to get used by you
> > Some of them want to abuse you
> > Some of them want to be abused
>
> > Sweet dreams are made of this
> > Who am I to disagree?
> > Travel the world and the seven seas
> > Everybody's looking for something
> > Some of them want to use you
> > Some of them want to get used by you
> > Some of them want to abuse you
> > Some of them want to be abused
>
> > I wanna use you and abuse you
> > I wanna know what's inside you
> > (Whispering) Hold your head up, movin' on
> > Keep your head up, movin' on
> > Hold your head up, movin' on
> > Keep your head up, movin' on
> > Hold your head up, movin' on
> > Keep your head up, movin' on
> > Movin' on!
>
> > Sweet dreams are made of this
> > Who am I to disagree?
> > Travel the world and the seven seas
> > Everybody's looking for something
> > Some of them want to use you
> > Some of them want to get used by you
> > Some of them want to abuse you
> > Some of them want to be abused
>
> > I'm gonna use you and abuse you
> > I'm gonna know what's inside
> > Gonna use you and abuse you
> > I'm gonna know what's inside you
>
> > On Mar 17, 11:04 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eris,
>
> > > I don't believe in a "good and bad" "right and wrong" mentality. I
> > > know I could get a lot of feedback from people with some extreme
> > > examples of horrific evens. Its the dualistic mind set that I am
> > > talking about. I try to view things from an organism central point of
> > > view. We are single organisms. There are things in the environment
> > > that my benefit a single person, maybe neutral to him/her or they may
> > > harm him/her. Some times another organisms is what can benefit or harm
> > > the person. Some times we benefit or harm others. One really can't put
> > > things into neat and tidy "good" and "bad" boxes. Life isn't that
> > > clear cut.
>
> > > Lana
>
> > > On Mar 16, 10:52 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:> I don't think women or men are good or bad, they just have a job to
> > > > do, reproduce and bring the offspring to maturity. I think males and
> > > > females are very good at the jobs they are assigned.
> > > > I have always felt religion was a tool used by females and some males
> > > > to control men. Lots of rules and lots of like minded people to
> > > > enforce the rules.
>
> > > > Having sex with a female you are not mated to, seems to be the number
> > > > one rule.
> > > > Looking at and lusting for other women, a close second.
>
> > > > Just by chance? I think not.
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 10:58 am, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Being an ex-fundamentalist and raised in this enviroment, I have a
> > > > > tendancy to take the free will side of a the "free-will vs.
> > > > > predestination" debate. However, switching over to the atheist, I
> > > > > think I am getting confused on the concepts of choice in our actions.
>
> > > > > I think we have a choices and make choices, however, our natural
> > > > > animal instincts and our environment will play a role in how we act.
> > > > > We all act one way at work, then how we act with our friends and such.
> > > > > There are times when we are "cornered" or accusted and we will REact
> > > > > out of fear or anger.
>
> > > > > You are right, Lawrey. It is complecated! I don't think there is any
> > > > > one answer, or one variable = one response, type of answer for
> > > > > behaviors. So many things should be taken into account with behavior
> > > > > predictions and choice.
>
> > > > > Lana
>
> > > > > On Mar 15, 3:47 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Lana,
>
> > > > > > Can you define what you mean by free-will. When you say
> > > > > > "many atheists don't believe in a free will." That's not quite
> > > > > > true and needs explaining and understanding for instance
> > > > > > the constraints that nature and societies place on us, that
> > > > > > restrict at every twist and turn our ability to exert an entirely
> > > > > > free will. Our ability to exert a free will, is defined by all
> > > > > > sorts of quite simple restraints like emotion. One simple
> > > > > > example: your best friend comes to visit with his obnoxious
> > > > > > little son. If you could exert your free will you might say all
> > > > > > manner of things when the boy plays up, but your will is
> > > > > > tempered by emotional feelings and the wish not to hurt
> > > > > > the feelings of your best friend. Consideration for others,
> > > > > > for practical reasons, for the laws of the land, for respect,
> > > > > > for emotion, for society, for and easy life, for politics.
> > > > > > Almost anything and everything, is capable of robbing us
> > > > > > of exerting our free will and does. So much so we do
> > > > > > have to ask do we in fact have a free will? Consider!
>
> > > > > > What is a will? A mental faculty by which we deliberately
> > > > > > choose or decide upon for a course of action; A
> > > > > > disposition to exercise this faculty; determination; will to
> > > > > > win; an intention; free discretion; inclination; to move
> > > > > > about at will; the power to exert over conflicting mental
> > > > > > and emotional tendencies and arrive at one's own
> > > > > > decision; importantly to resist: Considering all this and
> > > > > > more, including the power of your conscience over your
> > > > > > conscious actions and sub-consious will which works
> > > > > > against your will. Do we exercise free-will?
> > > > > > Circumstance and ability always interferes with will.
> > > > > > I will if I can and all things considered, after all I have
> > > > > > a will don't I? Well do I?
> > > > > > Over simplified for understanding, but you get my drift?
> > > > > > It's far more complicated really.
>
> > > > > > On Mar 14, 11:41 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > If we do not have free will, whose will do we have?
>
> > > > > > > I have heard many atheists say they don't believe in "free will". This
> > > > > > > confuses me a bit. I think we do to some degree, although there are
> > > > > > > certian general behavioral patterns that are "hardwired".
>
> > > > > > > Could some of the atheists elaborate on what is driving us? If you
> > > > > > > don't believe in free will at all, what do we have instead?
>
> > > > > > > Lana
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 14, 11:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 14, 12:03 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > you can have it or live it no one force you to do anything. you have a
> > > > > > > > > free will tha your gift use it wisly.
>
> > > > > > > > We have free will? Prove it.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 4:09 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > daffy,
>
> > > > > > > > > > I am not blaming people generally, nor any one person, I am
> > > > > > > > > > blaming religion and the beliefs they inculcate into their believers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > We as people are or course to blame for allowing religion to take
> > > > > > > > > > such a hold and to continue to support it, by not stopping it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 3:48 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > We people we never blame our self for our problems, that is the ego at
> > > > > > > > > > > work find somebody someone something but me I THINK THAT YOUR ANSWER.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2:58 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lana,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Intitially you might jump at this, but the correct and direct
> > > > > > > > > > > > answer to your question: "Did the problems create religion?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is most decidedly, YES! That needs explaining.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It was ignorance and lack of knowledge in early pagan times,
> > > > > > > > > > > > according to our earliest records of philosophical history and
> > > > > > > > > > > > the need to find answers to what was for them in that day,
> > > > > > > > > > > > difficult questions, especially in that day the reasons for
> > > > > > > > > > > > natural catasrophies; also questions evolved around all sorts
> > > > > > > > > > > > of important questions such as, (as Immanuel Kant tells us,)
> > > > > > > > > > > > "What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > A theoretical question a practical question and a speculative
> > > > > > > > > > > > one; on the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and our relation to it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > These questions and more have been thought over from
> > > > > > > > > > > > time to time, throughout all recorded time. The answers
> > > > > > > > > > > > at first hardly analytical rather more intuitive in outcome,
> > > > > > > > > > > > it being far easier to suggest superficially plausible
> > > > > > > > > > > > answers, rather than answers based on sound positive
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason. Be that as it may, intuitive answers to difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions resulted in the first steps, which sufficed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > give the first sense of the meaning of life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > For them in that day the simplest answers had to be that
> > > > > > > > > > > > some mysterious gods were responsible and they came
> > > > > > > > > > > > to believe that anything that could not be explained had
> > > > > > > > > > > > to be the result of a gods involvement.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Interest in theology was concerned at first with the destiny
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the individual, but in time it resulted in a more
> > > > > > > > > > > > independent appreciation of the goodness of a mysterious
>
> ...
>
> read more »

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:52 pm
From: atypican

That religion is used to help us with our problems I can agree with.
Does it fail miserably at times and even make certain problems worse?
Sure. Religion is part of our error making human nature and our
attempts to live up to the best ideals we have. Trying to do away with
religion is like trying to stop the people from forming any sort of
socio-political group based around ideas deemed to be valuable.

atypican

On Mar 11, 8:26 pm, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
> I know many Atheists who blame religion for the problems in the world
> including poverty, class tyranny, oppression of women, spread of
> disease, poor education, racism, homophobia, war, pollution, global
> warming, etc. Some Atheists don't blame religious groups for starting
> some of these problems. They do believe religious groups either
> exacerbate a problem or turn a blind eye to it. Christians will say
> the godless heathens and the devil are to blame for all the evil in
> the world. They say that all goodness comes from a god. Many Atheists
> will argue that we have the propensity for so called "good" and "evil"
> is in our nature or our genes. Our nature, good, bad and ugly, has
> evolved over thousands of years.
>
> There have been many societies around the world and through out
> history that have struggled with the same problems. If Atheists
> attempt to reduce religion, are we only treating the symptoms? Will
> the current problems seen in the world still exist even if religions
> could be irradiated or greatly reduced? Will similar organizations
> take its place once it has been removed? Can we really blame religion
> for what we as one extant ape species are all responsible for?
>
> Did religions create the problems? or did the problems create
> religions?
>
> Lana

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another incredibly horrible revelation about Christianity <Yawn> Where
doe it end?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/bdf41ed850521e26?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 9:53 pm
From: Eris

Not under homeland security.

On Mar 17, 11:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Eris wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 8:24 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 15, 2008, at 3:31 AM, rappoccio wrote:
> >>> On Mar 14, 11:14 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 14, 2008, at 10:05 PM, rappoccio wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 14, 2:08 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 14, 12:54 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> google Magdalene Laundries.
>
> >>>>>>> Christianity is just a method for gaining control of others, less
> >>>>>>> sinister trusting people.
>
> >>>>>> When one views the world through rose colored glasses, its not
> >>>>>> surprising that one perceives things to have a reddish tint ...
>
> >>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>> Brock
>
> >>>>> Yeah, the shades of religion can cause everything to look
> >>>>> distorted,
> >>>>> but it's just an illusion.
>
> >>>> (Humankind is not the measure of all things)
>
> >>>> Regards,
>
> >>>> Brock
>
> >>> Indeed. There are other animals, plants, minerals, and unicellular
> >>> life too. Most of them will be here long after we're extinct.
>
> >> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Brock
>
> > Kill them all, God knows his own.
>
> I believe such an order would exceed your authority.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fulfillment?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ebdefe313b83a13f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 10:29 pm
From: semi

On Mar 17, 12:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

> If it did, you would have explained it by now.

No need to explain the self explanatory. But like i said, you are dull
of hearing. Do not make me say it again, because it will just show it
even more.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:34 pm
From: atypican

Some Christians are not "sola scriptura" Christians. This means that
the JC Bible doesn't get the idol status it does with the bible
worshiping variety. There are even Christians who think Jesus was
misrepresented in and by the bible (and of course political
organizations). What percentage of Christs teachings must one embrace
to be a "True Christian"? If you embrace even one perhaps you are
justified to call yourself Christian No?

I have often entertained the thought that "fullfill" (in the biblical
context you presented described as happening to written laws) the laws
were put in place to serve a purpose, when what the laws were made to
accomplish is accomplished the law is fullfilled.

oh well my thoughts LOL

atypican

On Mar 14, 1:58 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> Often Christians--mostly those who are a little averse to those "eye
> for an eye" sort of thing--offer a reason why it is no longer
> necessary for them to follow the OT Law.
>
> Fulfillment, they say. Jesus apparently fulfilled it, whatever that
> means. My understanding was that Jesus made it so that the OT Law is
> no longer binding on those who accept him.
>
> Whatever that means.
>
> I think I can find a couple of verses to be of relevance, so let's
> examine them:
>
> Matt 5:17-18
>
> 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
> I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
>
> 18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
> smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
> disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18;&versio...
> (Copyright acknowledged)
>
> 17 is clear. Jesus has come to fulfill the Law and not to abolish it.
>
> 18 is clear as well.
>
> That is, until
>
> 1. heaven and earth disappear, and (notice AND, and not OR)
> 2. everything is accomplished (whatever everything is)
>
> the Law stays exactly where it is, in its full form. No exceptions.
>
> Dunno about heaven (my Meade telescope is broken, and NASA unjustly
> denied my application to use that Hubble thingy, again), but Earth has
> not disappeared.
>
> So Christians, why exactly are you disobeying Jesus by not stoning
> women for adultery or putting homosexuals to death?
>
> And on a secondary note, what exactly is fulfillment, and how do you
> know Jesus fulfilled it -- he only says he came to fulfill it?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New List of Sins
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/2671fcd5d95ef164?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:36 pm
From: random

On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> To : random (Ref Your reply at 4:44pm)
> You say : If they are speaking for God by his authority, then unlike
> what you write, he DOES get involved, only not in a clear way.
> Speaking for God by His authority is like an administrative matter.
> God resides in everybody's heart. If you are true to your heart, then
> you also can speak for God.

This sentence makes sense for private matters, and for a subjective
God. But the Vatican speaks of objective divine laws that apply to
everyone.
They are talking about who will go to hell.
So if everyone can speak for God, the Vatican says one thing and
another man says another thing, which of them is right?

> Good & Bad are defined by Basic Universal law. You perceive it as mere
> law whereas Vatican perceives it as God's will. The law is crystal-
> clear. Why should you need a continuous & direct feedback from Him for
> solving problems like Earth-pollution ?

Like I mentioned in the first post, the Vatican doesn't in any way
fight pollution, it merely threats by the name of God that those who
do will be punished in hell.
Common sense is enough to know that you need to fight pollution, but
it's not enough to guess it is one of the new deadly sins.

Besides, are *all* the laws crystal clear?
Even just on the new deadly sins there is at least one or two that are
as far as possible from a basic universal law (whatever that is).

> (Ref Your Reply at 5:11pm)
> "God doesn't need money" only Devil needs money !.... That's an
> argument based upon the assumption that entire material wealth has
> been created by Devil and that's meaningless. (Note : Here Devil means
> boss of left wing right wing criminals)

Not meaningless at all. On the contrary, I gave several examples of
good uses for the money.
You don't have to accept all of them, and you can certainly offer your
own ideas.

> pseudo-communists are experts at creating a list of dummy poor
> persons. Let me hope that you are not talking about these dummies when
> you talk of freebies like free apartments, free food etc. That will
> simply create regions like Cuba.

Just two post ago, you said the Vatican collects the money for the
poor, and doesn't distribute it in the fear of some hypothetical third
party that will steal the money. At least now you say the poor won't
get anything, by any condition.
Of course, that makes it "excessive wealth" by any parameter.

And no, not every distribution of food, or ways to helping the poor
directly turn the state into Communism.
If you help the ones in need, both to their immediate need and their
long range need so they can break the poverty cycle, it is practical
also for capitalism.

> Thank God. Our views match on the issue of education at least. True
> poverty eradication will have to be via better education.
>

So why not donate all the money in the Vatican to help educate people?
Free (or almost free) courses for computers, mechanics, electronics
and whatever else you want to add on the list?

> On Mar 17, 5:11 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So they gather the money to distribute it, but don't distribute the
> > money because it will be taken away by a third side?
> > Why should a poor man care where the money is as long as he never has
> > it?
>
> > Still afraid it will be taken away? No problem!
> > Donate free or almost free apartments, donate food to the needed, free
> > education (real one, the type you can actually apply to a job with),
> > medicine etc.
> > There is no limit to what you can do with the money.
>
> > Oh, and just so there won't be any misunderstanding, when I say
> > "donate" I mean unconditional donation that will drain the wealth of
> > the Vatican.
> > After all, God doesn't need money, right?
>
> > On Mar 17, 12:32 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > You say : I suspect the enhancing will be going on for a very very
> > > long time,
> > > Then what do you want ? Implement distribution in a hurry & have faith
> > > in third-rate criminals that they won't snatch that treasure ? No no
> > > no no no ... It's better to have faith in GOD than in criminals with
> > > impoverished souls.
>
> > > On Mar 17, 2:53 pm, Mac <kyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 7:35 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Due to unstable dial-up connection I couldn't answer you in time. I
> > > > > hope you won't mind late answer.
> > > > > You asked : How about excessive wealth of Vatican City ?
> > > > > Look at it the other way round. Vatican City acts as Trustees for the
> > > > > wealth of the unprivileged poor persons who don't have adequate
> > > > > education. If Vatican City distributes its wealth among poor just like
> > > > > that, third-rate criminals can easily snatch it from them and then the
> > > > > things will be out of control. So, Vatican City is concentrating on
> > > > > enhancing the calibre of poor before implementing treasure
> > > > > distribution.
>
> > > > I suspect the enhancing will be going on for a very very long time,
>
> > > > I hope no one is holding their breath in wait for Distribution Day.
>
> > > > Mac
>
> > > > > On Mar 15, 6:31 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 14, 5:05 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > So, the Church is NOT completely off-
> > > > > > the-track when it says, "Holding Excessive Wealth should be
> > > > > > considered
> > > > > > as sin."
>
> > > > > > LL: How abour the truly excessive wealth of the Catholic Church. Did
> > > > > > that come into the Pope's list? (I expect not.)
>
> > > > > > > The Catholic Church has issued an extended list of 'deadly
> > > > > > > sins'. While no one is likely to oppose the inclusion of "Earth
> > > > > > > Polluting" as a sin, some other categories of 'sin' such as "Excessive
> > > > > > > Wealth" may need more clarification.
> > > > > > > How to define EXCESS ? The basic universal law states that "No
> > > > > > > one should take more from society than what he/she gives back to the
> > > > > > > society." This law takes into account the aspects like efficiency,
> > > > > > > sincerity etc. So, the term "Excess" can be precisely defined with
> > > > > > > reference to this universal law. Anyone who takes more from the
> > > > > > > society is essentially part of some organised crime aimed at
> > > > > > > exploiting unprivileged persons. So, the Church is NOT completely off-
> > > > > > > the-track when it says, "Holding Excessive Wealth should be considered
> > > > > > > as sin."
>
> > > > > > > Reference "The Church" athttp://www.geocities.com/surf2raj-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Significance of Easter
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/4129bf6bf8275da1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:38 pm
From: Observer

On Mar 17, 7:20 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> This coming Sunday, Christians across the world will be celebrating
> Easter, the most significant day on our calendar. What is it that
> makes this day so important to us? While many see it is an
> opportunity to gather with family, or to collect Easter eggs, or to
> dress up and show off, it is much more than any of this. It is a day
> of remembrance and celebration of the events that form the core of our
> faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul quotes what was apparently a
> very early creed of the church, probably from within just a few years
> of the events themselves. "For what I received I passed on to you as
> of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the
> Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
> according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then
> to the Twelve." The death, burial, resurrection and post-resurrection
> appearances of Jesus are of first importance to us; more important
> than any other doctrine of Christianity. Easter provides us an
> opportunity to remember what he did for us 2000 years ago, as well as
> look forward to the life that he has brought us into.

Observer

Easter is about believing the most preposterous story ever told and
succumbing to the the greatest fraud ever penetrated against the
dignity of human kind. Paul turned the unwitting Jesus into a god
fraud and thereby inflicted untold misery on humanity for 2000 years
of diabolical christian tyranny .

Sorry old man nothing personal directed at you but superstition can
not be let to stand.

Psychonomist

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:48 pm
From: Observer

On Mar 17, 7:50 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 7:35 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 10:20 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > This coming Sunday, Christians across the world will be celebrating
> > > Easter, the most significant day on our calendar. What is it that
> > > makes this day so important to us? While many see it is an
> > > opportunity to gather with family, or to collect Easter eggs, or to
> > > dress up and show off, it is much more than any of this. It is a day
> > > of remembrance and celebration of the events that form the core of our
> > > faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul quotes what was apparently a
> > > very early creed of the church, probably from within just a few years
> > > of the events themselves. "For what I received I passed on to you as
> > > of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the
> > > Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
> > > according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then
> > > to the Twelve." The death, burial, resurrection and post-resurrection
> > > appearances of Jesus are of first importance to us; more important
> > > than any other doctrine of Christianity. Easter provides us an
> > > opportunity to remember what he did for us 2000 years ago, as well as
> > > look forward to the life that he has brought us into.
>
> > Yup. Yet another hijacked Pagan festival ;-)
>
> > Easter. Tthe name is believed to have come from the name Eastre, a
> > Saxon Goddess.
> > The festival was a celebration of Spring, the earthly symbol of Eastre
> > was the Bunny, and the Eggs are the symbol of fertility for most Pagan
> > cultures.
>
> > Happy Easter :-)
>
> > And sorry to rain on your parade OM!-
>
> No rain at all. The word Easter was adopted long after the events
> that we remember. Resurrection Sunday is actually a better term. And
> the Easter Bunny and Easter eggs are not a part of the Christian
> celebration. They are indeed secular baggage.

Observer
. Some Christians (usually, but not always fundamentalists), however,
continue to reject the celebration of Easter (and, often, of
Christmas), because they believe them to be irrevocably tainted with
paganism and idolatry. Their rejection of these traditions is based
partly on their interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=easter

Psychonomist

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Blog post I found that debunks recent NY Times article on Single Sex
Schools.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/89b84ebaf3d21632?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 17 2008 11:48 pm
From: "hardlyhome@mindless.com"

Take three. Bloody IE.

> >>>>>Okay thanks for the info. Glad you could show me I was wrong. In
>
> Australia there seems to be a feeling amoungst the population that
> private schools give a better education and they instill more
> disipline in the kids.<<<<<
>
> Oh, many have that feeling here, because of bullshit the media pumps
> about the school system. We have a very, very conservative Christian
> media here in the US, that benefits from all our liberal, socialist
> policies we have at the moment in the US yet bitches about them.
> Utah, for example, is our most conservative state, yet is also the
> most socialistic. Of course, say you're a Socialist there and they'll
> try to lynch you.

Again the impression we get here is quite different. What we see here
is what people are saying not so much what is actually happening
within govts. Could you give me a few examples of policies that you
would say are socialistic in nature.

> >>>>>>One question though. I hear a lot about the moral
>
> decline and associated bullshit from the religous right, much of it
> being blamed on lowering standards, teaching of evolution and no
> prayer in public schools. Are they all homeschooling or are
> they going to the private schools? <<<<<<
>
> No, in fact they bitch and bitch but don't actually do anything about
> it. Home schooling here in California is now basically banned unless
> you have been a teacher yourself, so they can't do it here. Most
> conservative religious people I know actually still send their kids to
> public school, as they can't always afford the outrageous prices of
> private religious schools (high prices doesn't make better) and most
> wouldn't be caught dead sending their kid to a private catholic
> school, so in the end they just bitch to bitch.

Wow, really. The hypocracy of that is really astounding. All we ever
hear from the religous reich is how bad public school education is and
how the country is going to hell in a handbasket because actual
science is being taught instead of their particular creation myth and
yet they are still sending their kids to these same schools? Amazing,
just amazing.

> Thanks. Maybe I am reading more into the news I get than I should. All
> we ever seem to hear about is the bad things. I personally don't think
> that every high school student is running around with a pocket full of
> knives and automatic assault rifles. <<<<<
>
> Of course they aren't here. I personally love guns as much as any
> american, but I know that the claim we have guns all over our schools
> is horseshit.

I've always thought so as well. But, again, that's all we ever hear
about. It's good to get a better perspective, I thank you.

> >>>>>I've always felt that it was
>
> media hype. I just assumed that people in America were falling for
> that hype in the same way many Australians are. <<<<<
>
> They are, sort of. They believe it, yet don't do anything about it.
> Americans are 100 percent LAZY, and have no conviction. So they do
> buy into this garbage, but too lazy to do anything about it.

Again the hypocracy here is astounding. Thanks for your input, I
appreciate it.

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

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

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

24 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links