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: Commentary on Does Religion Do More Harm Than Good Debate
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/4e1ad9c0a651f956?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:13 am
From: Dev

Now, it isn't any easier for _me_ to move the post than it is for you--
so obviously I'm not going to move it because you're being an asshole
and I'm not going to submit out of spite for you. Same as how I won't
_repeat_ how I know dillan is a liar and Geloso is a liar and Mike is
a liar and Keith is a liar--why the fuck should I have to? It's all
there. If you _cared_ about it you could clearly find it. Sometimes, I
refuse to reply to requests for Biblical contradictions. I _know_
these assholes have Google, I _know_ they can type, so I _know_ they
can Google two fucking words ("biblical contradictions") and find
them. Now, I know "people" like you will try to distort this to make
it _look_ like I just don't have an argument but since all the _facts_
are there it would take a retard to be convinced by the shit that
comes out of your mouth. You just want to make me jump through hoops
and my response to that is _fuck you_. I am _not_ going to jump
through hoops like a dog for non-reasons just to make you feel better
about yourself. My argument is _here_. It has been here for over a
year. If you wanted to _refute_ it you obviously could but you are
simply trying to waste my time. I presented the argument and I know
you don't have shit against it. You are just dishonest, stupid retard
like everyone else who believes in God.

On Mar 4, 3:59 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:37 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Let's assume that this is the _wrong_ thread. If you _could_ refute
> > anything I had to say, why would it be so important for you _not_ to
> > do so?
>
> Old Man has agreed to do some moderation on the main thread, and again
> this gets down to having the commentary posts here and the main debate
> posts there, as I asked the first time. Is it that hard for you to
> simply move the post?
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 3:53 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 6:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Oops Dev. You posted this in the wrong place. This is the Commentary
> > > > thread for the Peanut Gallery.
>
> > > > Your post should have been put in the Main thread called Does Religion
> > > > Do More Harm than Good. :)
>
> > > > Do you mind doing a quick cut and paste and copying it there?
>
> > > Once it's moved to the right thread, I'll start by replying to the
> > > post here.
>
> > > > On Mar 2, 6:25 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > You know? I've made my case and now it's just kind of that I'm
> > > > > supposed to repeat it. Fine. If I remember correctly, that little
> > > > > argument on your page that I linked Allan to addressed this. But
> > > > > that's cool. :)
>
> > > > > Does religion do more harm than good? Of course. Here's the
> > > > > "counterarguments" from the theists and the refutes. As always, the
> > > > > atheist has to do the heavy lifting for both. :)
>
> > > > > (1) ARGUMENT ONE FOR THEISM DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM: there is a God.
> > > > > Unsubstantiated and therefore garbage in a logical debate. I could
> > > > > provide a counterargument by these same "standards" of reason that
> > > > > Santa told me all theists rape kids, so it's true.
>
> > > > > (2) ARGUMENT TWO FOR THEISM DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM: there are
> > > > > theistic charities. But, interestingly enough, the arguments for _why_
> > > > > theistic charities are good are usually secular--it isn't because
> > > > > _God_ says they're good among anyone who isn't considered a lunatic by
> > > > > most theists, it is appealing to a universal understanding between
> > > > > nonbelievers and some believers that helping other people is a good
> > > > > thing. The same with people cherry-picking bits of The Bible that they
> > > > > say are good. Clearly, the goodness is not contingent on faith because
> > > > > the second this argument comes up secular standards are appealed to.
> > > > > Notice how the appeal to goodness works in this debate. It always
> > > > > comes to a _constant_ between _some_ believers and _most_
> > > > > nonbelievers. And I have done charity work for _allegedly_ theistic
> > > > > organizations despite my antitheism which proves that theism is not
> > > > > the motive and you can't make a false assumption that everyone working
> > > > > for these is a theist. Frankly, I just notice that Christians treat
> > > > > charities like holidays. They steal them and lie about them like they
> > > > > stole Christmas, slapped their label on it, lied about it--slapping
> > > > > their little Jesus label on them because they are both liars and
> > > > > thieves. Theists slap their little labels on charities to make their
> > > > > side look better, but rationally this doesn't make sense. The KKK--
> > > > > another Christian organization--did a few nice things for the
> > > > > community and shoved it's brand name down people's throats. So what?
> > > > > Were good things done by The Klan contingent on racism? Let's say The
> > > > > Klan saves a baby from a fire. Oh, good. If you like saving babies
> > > > > from fires, you must be a racist. Correlation, causation...aw, fuck
> > > > > it, let's just bring this one down to sanity. This all is _very_
> > > > > unsubstantial. There is no reason from the perspective of a
> > > > > rationalist _not_ to be charitable. But The Holocaust and even so-
> > > > > called "atheists" like Stalin and Mao--that required all kinds of
> > > > > religious faith, what they did. Giving Christians credit for
> > > > > charitable organizations is like giving them credit for Christmas--we
> > > > > all know that isn't accurate, right?
>
> > > > > (3) ARGUMENT THREE FOR THEISM DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM: Stalin and
> > > > > Mao were atheists. I don't know about this entirely, since "God" is
> > > > > not clearly defined. See, I asked Allan who the president of North
> > > > > Korea was and I still want to see what he says (if you remember the
> > > > > answer, you see my point). But the thing is, the criticisms we have of
> > > > > Stalin and Mao are the _same_ criticisms we have of religious faith--
> > > > > they were irrational and harmful by secular standards. Actually, this
> > > > > whole argument would take pages to refute. Hitchens gave it a shot in
> > > > > _God is Not Great_ but frankly he didn't even scratch the surface. And
> > > > > another thing--Christians like to say that we are _bad_ to bring up
> > > > > individuals who acted on theism because they didn't, to their
> > > > > preference, represent the collective. What do they do next? That's
> > > > > right, they bring up Stalin. Hypocritical--obviously. Wait, let's
> > > > > start a new one...
>
> > > > > (4) ARGUMENT FOUR FOR THEISM DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM: science has
> > > > > killed people. D'ur. Science, though, is not the _reason_ we kill each
> > > > > other so much as the method. Science is necessary for survival. Theism
> > > > > is optional. Now, theists like to make it out as if "science" simply
> > > > > refers to things they are too stupid to understand but actually
> > > > > science is simply a process we all require for survival if you look it
> > > > > up. We are debating between a necessary constant and a harmful option
> > > > > here.
>
> > > > > (5) ARGUMENT FIVE FOR THEIST DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM: criticizing
> > > > > people's beliefs are bad! D'uh, this is stupid. When I say your
> > > > > beliefs suck as then guess what? That is what I believe. I am saying
> > > > > you are mentally ill if you believe in God and the theists are calling
> > > > > that "intolerant". So here's how much of a fucking hypocrite the
> > > > > theist is. They whip out a Bible that says I should be tortured not
> > > > > just until I die, but forever. What is worse? (A) Supporting an
> > > > > institution that might kill me, has almost killed me, could kill me,
> > > > > has killed others, is killing somebody right now and beyond even all
> > > > > that asserts that it isn't even _enough_ to kill. (B) Me objecting to
> > > > > this. Universally, theists _all_ go with "B". Think about it. You
> > > > > deserve to be tortured forever, but if you have a problem with that it
> > > > > is _you_ who are the bigot. Why can't you be _tolerant_ of the fact
> > > > > that _most_ people think you should suffer and burn forever and ever
> > > > > for being being smart? They're your fucking enemies. Fuck 'em.
>
> > > > > And I could go on. But what's the point?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: When and where were you when you decided
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/828d3020f4f33098?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:14 am
From: Scrybl

I know what you mean, but sometimes as children we believe the things
we are told by our parents. There's a point at which you say, "Wait a
minute, this doesn't make sense."

On Mar 4, 6:07 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:56 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That religion/believing in God didn't make sense?
>
> You don't *decide* that something doesn't make sense. If it doesn't
> make sense it doesn't make sense. The end.
>
> > What was the primary
> > reason for changing your mind?
>
> I never held the positive assumption of God's existence.
>
> > Did you have a period of agnosticism?
>
> You mean a period of time when I waffled between the two positions?
> No, but I did have a period of time when I thought that's what
> agnosticism really meant.
>
> > How old were you?
>
> I simply never had the belief in god indoctrinated into me. I was left
> to make my own conclusions. It was not until the end of high school
> that I started realizing exactly what I was and what that meant.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Your thoughts and feelings would be much appreciated.
>
> > Scrybl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:16 am
From: Scrybl

Thanks for your input. :)

On Mar 4, 5:59 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:56 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That religion/believing in God didn't make sense?
>
> As soon as I could think.
>
> > What was the primary reason for changing your mind?
>
> It made no sense. It sounded just like Santa and I always knew there
> was no Santa.
>
> > Did you have a period of agnosticism?
>
> No.
>
> > How old were you?
>
> Five.

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:17 am
From: Scrybl

On agnosticism being "waffling between the two positions" - that's
what I thought it meant too. What does it mean then?

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:18 am
From: Scrybl

Thanks! You were lucky you didn't have parents that insisted that you
follow their religion, as many religious people do.

On Mar 4, 6:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:56 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That religion/believing in God didn't make sense? What was the primary
> > reason for changing your mind? Did you have a period of agnosticism?
> > How old were you?
>
> > Your thoughts and feelings would be much appreciated.
>
> I was raised as an atheist and religion was basically a non-issue in
> my household.
>
> When I wanted to explore at and attend church my parents had no
> objection.
>
> I attended Sunday School from about 9 to 12.
>
> What I discovered was the hypocrisy of religion and the fact that
> while the stories were cute they didn't make any sense if one wanted
> to claim they were true.
>
> As a teenager I extended my explorations by researching other
> religions and philosophies. I also read the Bible. Reading the Bible
> convinced me that Christianity was just insane and while some of the
> other religions had interesting philosophies, the belief in God never
> made much sense to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scrybl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:19 am
From: Trance Gemini

On Mar 4, 11:18 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks! You were lucky you didn't have parents that insisted that you
> follow their religion, as many religious people do.

They also, quite wisely, didn't stop me from exploring them either.

>
> On Mar 4, 6:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:56 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That religion/believing in God didn't make sense? What was the primary
> > > reason for changing your mind? Did you have a period of agnosticism?
> > > How old were you?
>
> > > Your thoughts and feelings would be much appreciated.
>
> > I was raised as an atheist and religion was basically a non-issue in
> > my household.
>
> > When I wanted to explore at and attend church my parents had no
> > objection.
>
> > I attended Sunday School from about 9 to 12.
>
> > What I discovered was the hypocrisy of religion and the fact that
> > while the stories were cute they didn't make any sense if one wanted
> > to claim they were true.
>
> > As a teenager I extended my explorations by researching other
> > religions and philosophies. I also read the Bible. Reading the Bible
> > convinced me that Christianity was just insane and while some of the
> > other religions had interesting philosophies, the belief in God never
> > made much sense to me.
>
> > > Scrybl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:19 am
From: Drafterman

On Mar 4, 11:14 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know what you mean, but sometimes as children we believe the things
> we are told by our parents. There's a point at which you say, "Wait a
> minute, this doesn't make sense."

Somtimes. Thankfully not in my case. Not to say what I never exposed
to such concepts. My grandparents are religious. Every Easter we went
to church. I live in the US. I couldn't not be exposed.

Perhaps, at times, I took the existence of God for granted, without
really evaluating it, but I don't think that made me a theist. In fact
I would argue that the bulk of theists are merely people that do take
the existence of God for granted, not thinking about it, and true
theists dishonestly lump them into their camp to bolster their
numbers.

But no, I never believed in God and then "snapped" out of it. The
concept just never took with me.

>
> On Mar 4, 6:07 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:56 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That religion/believing in God didn't make sense?
>
> > You don't *decide* that something doesn't make sense. If it doesn't
> > make sense it doesn't make sense. The end.
>
> > > What was the primary
> > > reason for changing your mind?
>
> > I never held the positive assumption of God's existence.
>
> > > Did you have a period of agnosticism?
>
> > You mean a period of time when I waffled between the two positions?
> > No, but I did have a period of time when I thought that's what
> > agnosticism really meant.
>
> > > How old were you?
>
> > I simply never had the belief in god indoctrinated into me. I was left
> > to make my own conclusions. It was not until the end of high school
> > that I started realizing exactly what I was and what that meant.
>
> > > Your thoughts and feelings would be much appreciated.
>
> > > Scrybl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:20 am
From: Dev

I honestly don't think there was one moment where I _became_ an
atheist. I was, like all of us, an atheist before I was born and an
atheist when I was born. I bought into a lot of the shit so-called
"adults" told me for the same reason the rest of you did--they were
bigger and they were older and a lot of what they told me turned out
to be true so I went with it. I think when I started asking them
questions, well, all theism pretty much escaped me.

On Mar 4, 8:56 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That religion/believing in God didn't make sense? What was the primary
> reason for changing your mind? Did you have a period of agnosticism?
> How old were you?
>
> Your thoughts and feelings would be much appreciated.
>
> Scrybl

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:20 am
From: Scrybl

Oop, forgot to say, also as you get older you start questioning things
and most importantly, reading other peoples opnions, which helps you
to make up your own mind.?

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:34 am
From: Drafterman

On Mar 4, 11:20 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oop, forgot to say, also as you get older you start questioning things
> and most importantly, reading other peoples opnions, which helps you
> to make up your own mind.?

When I began becoming vocal and solidifying how I felt about the
issues I was a teenager and teenagers question everything.

As for what helps me make up my mind, I absorb all the information I'm
exposed to and everything helps me make up my mind, for better or for
worse.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:35 am
From: etienne

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

On 4 mar, 17:17, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On agnosticism being "waffling between the two positions" - that's
> what I thought it meant too. What does it mean then?
>
> On Mar 4, 6:07 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:56 am, Scrybl <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That religion/believing in God didn't make sense?
>
> > You don't *decide* that something doesn't make sense. If it doesn't
> > make sense it doesn't make sense. The end.
>
> > > What was the primary
> > > reason for changing your mind?
>
> > I never held the positive assumption of God's existence.
>
> > > Did you have a period of agnosticism?
>
> > You mean a period of time when I waffled between the two positions?
> > No, but I did have a period of time when I thought that's what
> > agnosticism really meant.
>
> > > How old were you?
>
> > I simply never had the belief in god indoctrinated into me. I was left
> > to make my own conclusions. It was not until the end of high school
> > that I started realizing exactly what I was and what that meant.
>
> > > Your thoughts and feelings would be much appreciated.
>
> > > Scrybl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why we're here.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/583c0875372f6ed6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:15 am
From: Trance Gemini

Can I suggest you start a thread on this. You've raised some
interesting points and it's a subject on it's own.

I'm surprised that you would believe that knowledge is absolute but I
guess it depends on how you define it.

On Mar 4, 11:11 am, WVProfessor <augus...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Now a little philosophy.
> The scientific method will never be strictly logical in the sense of
> mathematics. Scientific induction is not the same as mathematical
> induction and philosophers have lamented for centuries that scientific
> induction fails the test of mathematical logic. So science has its own
> kind of "logic" and its own rules.
> It is granted that we will never have absolutely all knowledge. It is
> unfortunate that we have determined so few absolute truths. I believe
> in absolute truth. Anyone who does not believe in the internet, speak
> up.
> But the rules of science are like the rules of of the courtroom.
> There is no rule that requires justice. Instead the rules have been
> designed to maximize the possibility of justice. In science the
> method has been designed to maximize the possibility of finding truth.
> Since there is the possibility of error science is considered
> tentative. However it is the best we have and far superior to any
> other way. It cannot be overemphasized that an idea that fails to
> meet criticism is dead, whether its owner is pigheaded or not.
> As for science suffering from revolutions, I have seen the two
> greatist discoveries of our time-Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
> These supposed big changes had only a small impact on how we live and
> think, and most important they had no impact on the subject of our
> debate. For someone to worry about the chance of some discovery
> changing our dim view of religion, well you should worry more about a
> near earth asteroid.
> While some folks persue the state of the art in cosmology and quantum
> mechanics, it is not necessary to dwell in those areas to defeat
> christians. The historical record alone is sufficient to destroy
> every church.
> Education is a ferocious enemy of religion. When young children learn
> enough science to make their own world view, they will almost always
> reject nonsense.
> I was an Atheist at 10.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did Jesus have sex with his own mother?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/e25036782e2c5679?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:21 am
From: Eris

He is his own father, isn't he?
Think about it.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:33 am
From: vaidyaguru

I have a feeling there are maximum atheists on this group.

How can a hard core christian take so much abuse about his god, jesus,
religion etc. etc.?

On Mar 4, 9:21 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He is his own father, isn't he?
> Think about it.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:34 am
From: vaidyaguru

And despite having sex, she still remained a virgin.

On Mar 4, 9:21 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He is his own father, isn't he?
> Think about it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God Bless America
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/7acd83913e058a53?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:25 am
From: Trance Gemini

On Mar 4, 12:43 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> For edification purposes anyone interested can check this link out.
>
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/03/marine_puppy_video_030308/

Multiverse. I'd just like to have it on the record that I don't have a
problem with the military and in fact have spoken out on the issue of
Atheists in Foxholes and that we should support them.

I have a problem with anyone, military or not who would do such a
thing to an animal.

I'm glad to see that the military is taking this seriously and
investigating the issue.

>
> On Mar 3, 11:35 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > You have made many uninformed, or, informed incorrectly, comments here
> > that are generally disparaging to the US military. Since you have
> > never worn a uniform, and that's fine because not all can serve, you
> > get a pass on coming to what ever conclusions you care to. However,
> > putting some video like that on here and stoking the fire is quite an
> > anti military thing to do. Now I'm not talking about censorship.
> > Post whatever ye likes. In fact you should include the fact that the
> > military services also have their share of rapists, pedophiles,
> > murderers, fraud artists, drug addicts, liars, cheeters, scammers, and
> > of course little cute puppy killers. The important thing is that
> > none of these types of shit stains are representative of the overall
> > person serving in the military. As the saying goes, a leopard can't
> > change his spots. So just because someone joins the military does not
> > mean that they won't be one of those listed above. Now I want to
> > point out some of your inaccuracies here.
>
> > > I don't know what you've heard about boot camp but it's pretty obvious
> > > that they want to make you both violent and obedient.
>
> > obedient yes. surely you would not advocate the United States
> > organize its military without obedience. Then there is also no reason
> > to make a statement that appears to be casting the concept of the
> > military's need for obedience in a bad light.
>
> > make you violent? Incorrect. military personnel are trained to use
> > violence in the performance of their duties in a military campaign.
> > Whether that be hand to hand combat, marksmanship, or other various
> > methods commonly employed to let the blood out of the enemy fighter.
> > Nobody is taught to be a violent person for the hell of it.
>
> > >If you are _not_ blindly obedient, or _not_ good at violence you get punished and humiliated.
>
> > Nobody teaches blind obedience. to start with, the person giving the
> > orders that are being obeyed, knows what the fuck he is talking about
> > (at least with Marines) or he would not be the one giving orders.
> > Those doing the obeying need not worry about weather its a good order
> > or not. That would be fucking stupid and no way to run a military.
> > military personnel are therefore trained to follow orders by all those
> > of superior rank.
>
> > violence, punished, humiliated: you obviously have no understanding
> > (and I don't hold that against you because you have never served) of a
> > profession that involves the need to kill other human beings. you
> > will get punished (and if that's humiliating then tough shit) for not
> > being good at lots of things to include the ability carry out military
> > needs that include acts of violence. Would you rather get over some
> > hurt feelings in training or be responsible for getting yourself and
> > those around you killed. perhaps we should give every fuck wad a gun
> > and grenades whisper nicely in his ear to go kindly fucking kill
> > sombody? Its not a very nice buissness, killing and trying not to be
> > killed. I could go on but I'm keeping this short.
>
> > >You have to sign your lives off to other people to join the military in the US. This is so you can't waltz out like you'd probably do with a normal job if you were treated and paid like that.
>
> > Absolutely not correct. You don't sign your life off to any person.
> > You sign a contract with the United States. Congress specifically has
> > the right to raise an army etc... then you take an oath:
>
> > "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> > defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> > foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> > the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the
> > United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
> > according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So
> > help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the
> > wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October
> > 1962).
>
> > Yes I always hated that word god in there!
>
> > but you make it sound as if Joe schmo signs his life off to some tom,
> > dick, or harry somewhere, and those guys are assholes. No need to
> > make it sound so dorked up. I could be wrong but I am not aware of
> > any military anywhere that would let its members just up and quit.
> > George Washington bribed his army with the incentive of an extra 10
> > dollars pay to stay, as a large portion of these volunteers commitment
> > was up. They accepted and after he made the deal ol George went and
> > asked the continental congress if they wouldn't mind paying. Military
> > life ain't easy, and in time of war its not getting easier. that's
> > just the way it is.
>
> > >This is so you can't waltz out like you'd probably do with a normal job if you were treated and paid like that.
>
> > no way possible to compare military service to a civilian job. Two
> > types of people do this. Those that have not served, and young guys
> > who joined when they were 18 and never had a job beyond McD's.
>
> > > I had a pal in the Navy who factored that--if his salary was lined up
> > > like an hourly wage--he was getting about three bucks an hour. Hmm.
>
> > see above. if you like, submit your pay and benefits package and I'll
> > compare it to a pay and benefits package available to a 17 year old
> > high-school grad. Then you decide.
>
> > > Now, what does this have to do with us non-military Americans? For one
> > > thing, like I said before, we have to admit that we don't have a
> > > better option than the current military structure.
>
> > Nor will you ever with this kind of mindset against the military
> > without really knowing anything about it. The fact is: The United
> > States military is the finest, best equipped, most motivated, most
> > feared military in the world. Period.
>
> > >Our armies _should_ be made harsh and violent and effective.
>
> > The word harsh is unnecessary. The word violent is being used in a
> > negative anti military tone. Of course an army is violent in what it
> > does. Your just wording it to make it look bad.
>
> > You got "effective" correct.
>
> > >What would happen to this country if boot camp turned into daycare?
>
> > Sounds like your on the right track here somehow.
>
> > >I find it ironic, though, that the right-wingers here are the "pro-military" guys when they make
> > > all these shortcuts in paying the servicemen.
>
> > both sides play the political game here. I would tend to agree with
> > this but the fact is that military pay and benefits have been treated
> > pretty good since 9/11. The other problem is: well have you ever seen
> > what it takes to pass laws in this country? The lesson to be learned
> > here is its good to vote as an independent.
>
> > >George W. Bush made a nice little tax cut in deciding _not_ to give them body armor, which
> > > resulted in the deaths of a lot of young Americans. Of course, so did
> > > his lies in getting us into Iraq in the first place.
>
> > Not bothering with this one and it should be clear I am not stating a
> > position here.
>
> > Well that's my two cents. You should know that just because you have
> > seen some jackasses do some jackass things that it does not represent
> > the American fighting man. Why you choose to take an obviously anti
> > military stance is your business but from what I have seen of your
> > posts your quite misinformed and have sampled to much young misguided
> > bravdo.
>
> > On Mar 3, 7:18 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know what you've heard about boot camp but it's pretty obvious
> > > that they want to make you both violent and obedient. If you are _not_
> > > blindly obedient, or _not_ good at violence you get punished and
> > > humiliated. You have to sign your lives off to other people to join
> > > the military in the US. This is so you can't waltz out like you'd
> > > probably do with a normal job if you were treated and paid like that.
> > > I had a pal in the Navy who factored that--if his salary was lined up
> > > like an hourly wage--he was getting about three bucks an hour. Hmm.
>
> > > Now, what does this have to do with us non-military Americans? For one
> > > thing, like I said before, we have to admit that we don't have a
> > > better option than the current military structure. Our armies _should_
> > > be made harsh and violent and effective. What would happen to this
> > > country if boot camp turned into daycare? I find it ironic, though,
> > > that the right-wingers here are the "pro-military" guys when they make
> > > all these shortcuts in paying the servicemen. George W. Bush made a
> > > nice little tax cut in deciding _not_ to give them body armor, which
> > > resulted in the deaths of a lot of young Americans. Of course, so did
> > > his lies in getting us into Iraq in the first place.
>
> > > On Mar 3, 3:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 1:21 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > You know, I've had friends in the military and it really goes like
> > > > > this. Remember that kid in the front row in high school that always
> > > > > raised their hand? The guy that joined the military out of patriotism
> > > > > is that guy. 99 out of 100 soldiers make fun of that guy--I hear it
> > > > > all the time. Now, I'm not saying the other guys don't love their
> > > > > country--of course not, many of them are friends of mine--I'm just
> > > > > saying they joined the military for the same reason most people went
> > > > > to high school. Because they pretty much had to. It was usually
>
> ...
>
> read more »

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God without religion
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ae48c7643ce0987c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:43 am
From: Trance Gemini

Suggest you read up on a concept called the God of the Gaps.

Essentially it states that human beings attempt to answer the
unanswerable by creating gods to provide those answers.

When human science and knowledge provides a sensible answer god is
taken out of the picture.

Evolved Human beings now realize this and the default position is no
longer to assume godidit but investigate, question, analyze, and
invoke science to provide us with the answer.

On Mar 4, 12:26 am, robro2 <ro...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> Atheism vs Christianity
>
> Recently I posted a suggestion that religion wasn't necessary to
> communicate with God and was surprised at the quality of the interest
> expressed. I thought I'd continue this a bit further to try to
> clarify some points raised.
>
> So to start, to those who are genuine Atheists let me say I accept and
> understand the valid differences of opinion raised and welcome the
> comments, but there's no place here for those who feel antagonistic or
> aggressive for some reason about the subject. Reasonable disagreement
> fine - but rudeness is automatically out and if this describes you -
> please go away.
>
> I am aware that there is a general sort of scientific comment that
> says 'if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist.' But this just
> highlights the fact that science can't produce a valid measuring stick
> to use to measure the philosophical processes under discussion, and
> certainly doesn't mean that there aren't things unseen, yet to be
> explored.
>
> For example, you are an intelligent human being, consisting of a
> physical body and a mental self - the unconscious self/life force if
> you like - that automatically signals the body's needs as these arise
> and urges action to satisfy them. This enables us to live as human
> beings and, in an extreme sense, is all that is basically needed for
> the body to exist as a living entity.
>
> SPIRITUAL BEING But what about the conscious self - the reasoning
> bit - it has the ability to try to sort out all sorts of abstract
> ideas. Briefly, it has the ability to decide on whether it wishes to
> become a philosopher, an Atheist or a religious person of some kind,
> or a part combination of these. So, who or what is it?
>
> As it's not a physical presence it's all in the mind, but, there is no
> doubt that it really exists and, that it resides in all humans, so
> what sort of an entity is deciding on the words to think/say/ write/
> read and to make moral judgements and where does it get it's
> inspiration from?
>
> You'll probably agree that it is the essential non physical you, which
> really can't be described or measured except in terms of results or
> achievements of some sort. Even these measurements can be variable
> according to the bias of the measurer, so nothing is exact, but is the
> best we can do.
>
> Taking this a bit further, the non physical you is also alert to
> external influences - you get feelings about things - almost
> instinctive feelings that can't easily be explained. For example, we
> all experience 'lucky' choices or 'hunches' that have turned out
> beneficial courses of action and, of course, the reverse. This
> provides us with a sort of confirmation that we have other than
> physical characteristics available to us, and at odd times we wonder
> about them.
>
> This non physical form, and these experiences could reasonably be said
> to be of a spiritual nature. Other terms could be used, perhaps, but
> a spiritual view is not unreasonable.
>
> GOD Let's move on - there is always doubt when discussing God, as
> religions have muddied the water so much over the centuries, and the
> very best we can say is that a God by definition is just
> indescribable. Now, to try to use this lack of information as proof
> that God doesn't exist, simply means that you haven't thought about it
> very much.
>
> In the same way that you have to accept that the spiritual you is
> within, and is an unknown, so God is also without and unknown. But, in
> my view, indirect contact between God and the spiritual you, as God's
> local on site agent, does take place on occasion. However, as this
> is a personal matter, any comment about such a contact is regarded
> with suspicion, and rightly so. No, I'm not talking about 'hearing
> voices ' and the like, because we've all become aware of the tragic
> results, from time to time, of individuals hearing voices.
>
> God has given Man the wit and understanding to be able to control his
> planet and everything on it, and if he destroys it then he will have
> destroyed himself and the experiment has failed. Look at the present
> world climate change for the latest effort!
>
> Similarly, in my view the only explanation that allows for Man's
> continuing inhumanity to Man, is that God is only interested in
> spiritual matters, and regards the human condition as a passing phase
> on the way to a different life. History confirms this 'lack of
> interest' point and in any case, why should he interfere - Man is
> master of his own destiny on his planet.
>
> RELIGION? These are Man made attempts to reach God - that's all -
> just someone's opinion on the best way to reach God's attention, but
> as far as I know, approval hasn't been given to any of them. They are
> a mark of Man's developmental progress, and if anyone can confirm,
> which one has God's approval, then please let us know and we'll all be
> able to sort ourselves out on a much better basis.
>
> Your comments will be of interest

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To Atheists
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/b7c9e5128f32d00a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:47 am
From: Stoned

Excellent insight Dev!...But don't worry. Theist will fall over
time by the weight of their own contradictions. Some day they will
eventually have to clear out the trash in the attic between their
ears!

On Mar 2, 7:04 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Two characters in this one: the villain and you.
>
> The villain finds you and through strength in numbers overpowers you.
> Then, his allies flee. But he remains, as will you, in this
> conversation. I want you to take this seriously and evaluate it
> seriously.
>
> YOU: You are trying to hurt me.
>
> VILLAIN: Of course.
>
> YOU: Why?
>
> VILLAIN: No reason. See, that's the thing with me and people like me.
> We don't have to back up our motives. Whatever we do, by our
> standards, is just fine. That's what's great about faith. Reasons are
> useless.
>
> YOU: You've hurt me, you're hurt others, doesn't this have to stop?
>
> VILLAIN: See, no. It doesn't. It won't stop until we're all dead. But
> when we all die, guess who killed everybody? Theists did. That means
> we win.
>
> YOU: I should have killed you before.
>
> VILLAIN: That would have been intolerant.
>
> YOU: Why?
>
> VILLAIN: Because you are saying that violence resolves the argument.
>
> YOU: What would have been the alternative? I tried to talk to you and
> it didn't work.
>
> VILLAIN: There isn't supposed to be an alternative. That's not how
> this works with us. We don't _want_ you to win, which is why strength
> in numbers is what matters to us. If we were to even _consider_
> bringing reason into this then it would be pretty shitty strategy on
> our part.
>
> YOU: But don't you have feelings?
>
> VILLAIN: Um, this is kind of awkward--I support theism.
>
> YOU: Oh, my bad--sorry. I was lying here bleeding to death assuming
> that theists were people with brains and feelings.
>
> VILLAIN: Common mistake. Did you know that people actually begged for
> their lives in The Salem Witch Trials, The Holocaust, honor killings--
>
> YOU: Haha.
>
> VILLAIN: I know it! But I'm not done. Honor killings, Inquisitions,
> Crusades, Manifest Destiny, slavery, rape, hypocrisy--well, nevermind.
> I will never be done. Point is, it doesn't matter that you're trying
> to reason with me. This is not what we do. What we do is do what we
> have always done and will continue to do unless we are stopped. You
> try to reason and feel, and then what happens? You fucking die.
>
> YOU: Wow, I really did fuck up here.
>
> VILLAIN: Yup.
>
> YOU: And now I'm about to die.
>
> VILLAIN: We all die. But this is what I like. See, _I_ am a loving
> person for _loving_ the fact that being skeptical about the fact that
> you should be tortured for eternity for not supporting a racist,
> sexist, violent, pro-rape, pro-genocide war-mongering institution with
> no rational support. Since you disagree with me, you deserve what
> often happens to people who meet theists and more.
>
> YOU: You are delusional.
>
> VILLAIN: See, you don't see how this works, do you? I say you should
> be tortured for eternity, and that is loving. You _object_ to this
> assertion, and that is called intolerant.
>
> YOU: Your beliefs can't be differentiated from delusion.
>
> VILLAIN: It doesn't matter. Differentiation is not our can of beans.
> We say something, and it becomes true because there are way too many
> of us out there. You want to bitch about reality? _This_ is reality.
> See, _you_ want to call this a disease. But you know what? We have
> been able to get away with making this belief _not_ a disease for no
> other reason than that it's so contagious. So guess what? We are going
> to kill you.
>
> YOU: I should have killed when I had the chance.
>
> VILLAIN: Why does this matter now? There are so many of us and we're
> all the same. We have hung black children from trees. We have accused
> innocent young women of witchcraft and burnt them as they were hung to
> death after we raped them. We have stoned helpless young girls to
> death because our literature tells us that they deserved it for being
> raped. ARE YOU REALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THERE IS ANYTHING WE
> CAN'T DO? We did all of these things BECAUSE we are theists. THIS IS
> WHAT GIVES US THE POWER. THIS IS ALL OF IT.
>
> YOU: There are people who will fight you.
>
> VILLAIN: Nah, not really. They'll say we should all be nice and get
> along. By the time they realize their mistake, it will be too late.
>
> YOU: Fuck off, fucktard.
>
> VILLAIN: Ouch. That sure was _mean_. I am going to bitch that you
> should be banned from AvC. And I'm going to explain why somehow _you_
> are the one who should be vilified in this situation. See, if you had
> ever been to AvC you would notice this works a lot. Theists can just
> keep killing but actually _calling_ them on it makes _you_ the
> asshole.
>
> YOU: Piss on you.
>
> VILLAIN: And now you're dead. Oh, well. See, when you criticize _us_
> it is intolerance. But when you kill and rape and destroy the planet--
> well, that's just us doing something that--well, let's look at it this
> way. As long as religious faith is a justification for, say, belief in
> God--it kinda works both ways. We have _faith_ in that we aren't
> destroying this species. And I will continue to have faith that I was
> never here. 'Night, atheist. You should have killed me when you could.

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:52 am
From: "roger.pearse@googlemail.com"

On 4 Mar, 12:55, cathyb <cathybees...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:33 pm, "roger.pea...@googlemail.com"
> > > (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.
>
> > Since you know that Christians are the only group with consciences
> > unless you have some demonstration of an atheist principle that all
> > atheists must behave in accordance with some specified set of beliefs
> > -- this is not a very clever thing to say.
>
> Er, suggesting that a conscience is a specified set of beliefs is
> really not a very clever thing to say.

I'm not clear from this on what basis you think atheists (or indeed
anyone) should live, then. I take it that you make conscience the
ultimate moral arbiter? (You deny my statement, but make no statement
which offers a different explanation, you see).

Are their consciences just whatever irrational promptings happen to
occur to them? Or are they rationally based? If the former, why
should they listen to them? If the latter, on what rational basis.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Questions by Atheist
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ef1964a64552306b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:47 am
From: "Keith MacNevins"

Dave is an expert in asininity.

On 3/3/08, Dave <dvorous@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 3, 7:12 am, vaidyaguru <vaidyag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you tell me what is "assinine"
> >
> > I checked up my Oxford dictionary but it doesnt show up any meaning
> > for assinine.....
>
> Try spelling it with only one 's'.
> >
>

--
Ambassador From Hell
Keith A. MacNevins
Elk Grove Village, IL USA
copyright

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:48 am
From: "Keith MacNevins"

Yes, lawrey, but what did you think of *my* post?

On 3/4/08, Lawrey <lawrenceel@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Keith,
>
> The asininity of this post is indicative of the asinine person
> responsible
> for it and who has become known for his utter stupidity.
>
> On Mar 3, 6:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My trusty ol' Funk'n Wagnalls dictionary uses the word but does not
> define
> > it. It just says that among anti-theists there's an assinine out of ten
> of
> > 'em.
> >
> > On 3/3/08, vaidyaguru <vaidyag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Can you tell me what is "assinine"
> >
> > > I checked up my Oxford dictionary but it doesnt show up any meaning
> > > for assinine
> >
> > > On Mar 3, 6:20 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > 1. Don't try to mske sense out of somthing thats assinine.
> >
> > > > 2. gods do not exist
> >
> > > > 3. see # 2
> >
> > > > On Mar 3, 3:52 am, vaidyaguru <vaidyag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Some questions of an atheist :
> >
> > > > > 1) Why is it that the religious preaching (or knowledge)
> > > regarding
> > > > > origin of humans, or say child birth and human death and what
> happens
> > > > > after death, different for different religions? For example most
> of
> > > > > the christians and muslims bury the dead, whereas the hindus
> cremate
> > > > > the dead. If a human is the same all over the world (except for
> > > > > outward variations like color of the skin, eyes, hair etc., or
> height,
> > > > > build, weight etc.,) then there should be a uniformity on all
> matters
> > > > > concerning humans.
> >
> > > > > 2) Does the god of christians have a limited jurisdiction
> over
> > > only
> > > > > those who read and follow the preaching of the bible an pray
> > > > > accordingly? Does he selectively ignore all the rest of the
> humanity?
> > > > > Ditto to allah and to the hindu gods etc. etc.?
> >
> > > > > 3) Does god also cater to only limited geographical area,
> > > depending on
> > > > > the beliefs of the majority population in that area? If so, what
> > > > > happens to the minority who migrate to such areas? Or does he/they
> > > > > subtly check the passports and citizen IDs of all the humans?-
> Hide
> > > quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > --
> > Ambassador From Hell
> > Keith A. MacNevins
> > Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > copyright- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

--
Ambassador From Hell
Keith A. MacNevins
Elk Grove Village, IL USA
copyright

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discussion on top-10-reasons-to-accept-evolution-and-other-godless-
scientific-findings
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/1a8d6900dbf9b1e5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 8:57 am
From: MoreToScience

Everyone,

All these theories and "scientific" paperbacks can counter each other
for generations, needless to say we all have no hard evidence as to
what happened centuries and aeon's ago. Everyone should realize this:
Science is not finite. That is why there are endless written
scientific reports that either SUPPORTS or CLASHES with the existence
of God (i.e. Article citation: Theology's Truth and Scientific
Formulation).

What makes Atheists divergent from Christians (and all faiths), is
that Atheists don't see that there is a point in believing that there
is a God. Needless to say, Atheists just haven't discovered what
Christians are fond about. It goes beyond mere attendance in Church
and prayer to become a Christian. I suggest that you should research
beyond that of the material AGAINST Christianity with a hostile
attitude, and try looking into the reasons why there is a purpose
behind faith. It just makes you a more understanding and accepting
person in the end. =]

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 9:10 am
From: Drafterman

On Mar 4, 11:57 am, MoreToScience <jirehle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> All these theories and "scientific" paperbacks can counter each other
> for generations, needless to say we all have no hard evidence as to
> what happened centuries and aeon's ago.

Define "hard evidence". Furthermore, given alterations in scientific
thinking, the alleged lack of so called "hard evidence" what do you
propose the solution or outcome should be?

> Everyone should realize this:
> Science is not finite.

Everyone should realize this: religion is not rational.

> That is why there are endless written
> scientific reports that either SUPPORTS or CLASHES with the existence
> of God (i.e. Article citation: Theology's Truth and Scientific
> Formulation).

And where can one find that article?

>
> What makes Atheists divergent from Christians (and all faiths), is
> that Atheists don't see that there is a point in believing that there
> is a God.

Another way that can be phrased is "There is no point in believing
their is a God because one doesn't exist, and atheists recognize that"

> Needless to say, Atheists just haven't discovered what
> Christians are fond about.

This presupposes that there *is* something fond worth discovering. I
see no support for that assumption.

> It goes beyond mere attendance in Church
> and prayer to become a Christian.

I'm sure a lot of it has to do with indoctrination of members from an
early age, brainwashing them, essentially.

> I suggest that you should research
> beyond that of the material AGAINST Christianity with a hostile
> attitude, and try looking into the reasons why there is a purpose
> behind faith.

First, a critical or skeptical attide is not automatically hostile. It
is not the atheists' fault that theists hole irrational beliefs and
seek to control the way the world runs based on those beliefs.

Please, oh please, highlight the history of acts performed in the name
of atheism and in the name of theism and tell me which has been more
hostile. Even if critique and skepticism *was* hostile, theism is
certainly deserving of it.

I can speculate endless why a Christian is a Christian. Certainly they
feel there is a good reason or purpose (fear of eternal punishment,
hope of eternal reward, etc). That doesn't make their reason right or
rational. It doesn't make it worth considering.

> It just makes you a more understanding and accepting
> person in the end. =]

No, it makes us suceptible. It's called a "wedge". When atheists back
down, theists creep forward and claim more territory. You have
presented no reason why a person should be understanding and accepting
of irrational beliefs which have been used to harm the world as a
whole.

There is a word for that: lunacy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Martyrdom
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/626173f7326dc8e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 9:02 am
From: wiseclam

On Mar 4, 8:28 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> It could. But it does not have to.

Agree. Luckily this is the case with most Christians.

> Personally, I don't disconnect the two. I believe that life here is
> in preparation for the life to come. What I do now makes a difference
> in my eternity.

But you have exposed a weak spot in your thinking. You said:

"I do not fear death. I am ready for it when it comes. My family
will
be OK. So why should I deny him just for a few more years here? "

You would not deny God for "just a few more years". Right here you
are placing life in the here and now - - real life! - - at a value
level below that of the afterlife. And you don't even know this to
exist. This is the dynamic that allows people to fly airplanes filled
with people into buildings filled with people. I KNOW it doesn't have
to result in that, OldMan, but it does.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Top 50 atheist aphorisms
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/b3d5de2bee7d04f0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 4 2008 9:10 am
From: Trance Gemini

115. Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does
to
skyscrapers

This one just went into my profile!

Too perfect.

On Mar 3, 12:05 pm, BlueSci <blue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:36 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I love those! Hey go for 100. I'm enjoying it ;-)
>
> I'm having too much fun with this and am now over 100. Guess I'll
> have to shoot for 200 now.
>
> 76. There's a sucker born-again every minute
>
> 77. I gave myself to Jesus...And now he never calls.
>
> 78. Jesus loves me, but I make him wear a condom.
>
> 79. Silly Chrisitan myths are for kids!
>
> 80. Fine! I evolved...you didn't!
>
> 81. Have you forgotten about Jesus? Isn't it about time you did?
>
> 82. Does God speak to you? There's medication for that.
>
> 83. They call it "creation science" because it's all made up.
>
> 84. Intelligent Design is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of.
>
> 85. Before you blame me, remember, it's all part of God's plan
>
> 86. The Bible...A Grim Fairy Tale
>
> 87. Faith is believing what you know ain't so
> 88. Darwin loves you
>
> 89. Atheists are beyond belief
>
> 90. If you want a country run by religion, move to Iran
>
> 91. Heck is where people go who don't believe in Gosh
>
> 92. Jesus save me from your followers!
>
> 93. God is a control freak
>
> 94. Atheist. Proud member of the reality based community
>
> 95. Atheism. The alternative to wishful thinking
>
> 96. The truth shall set you free...from religion
>
> 97. I read the bible. That's why I'm an atheist.
>
> 98. No God No Problem
>
> 99. I think, therefore I'm an atheist.
>
> 100. A mind is a terrible thing to waste....on religion
>
> 101. If you're not an atheist, you're not reading the bible properly
>
> 102. Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is
> answers that may never be questioned
> 103. Freedom is the distance between church and state
>
> 104. So, what's your drug of choice? Religion?
>
> 105. Love is an emotion, not a deity.
>
> 106. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
> that whosoever would believe in him would probably believe just about
> anything.
>
> 107. I don't know and you don't either!
>
> 108. Don't blame Christians, they just have bad role models.
>
> 109. If there was an afterlife, Isaac Asimov would have written a
> book about it by now.
> 110. When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"?
> 111. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
>
> 112. He is YOUR God. They are YOUR Rules. YOU burn in Hell!
>
> 113. The last time we mixed politics with religion people got burned
> at the stake.
>
> 114. Humanity without religion is like a serial killer without a
> chain saw.
>
> 115. Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to
> skyscrapers
> 116. What schools need is a moment of science.
> 117. Reality: That which doesn't go away when you stop believing in
> it.
> 118. If you are going to believe in a god, better hope it's the right
> god.
> 119. Non-judgement day is near
> 120. Reality doesn't give a damn about your beliefs
> 121. It's hard to be religous when certain people are never
> incinerated by bolts of lightening...
> 122 Repentance is Futile
> 123. Atheists are Real People because they believe in Reality
> 124. I am an agnostic pagan. I doubt the existance of many gods.
> 125. A religious war is like children fighting over who has the
> strongest imaginary friend.
> 126. The Religious Right aren't, and Scientific Creationism isn't.
> 127. Annoy a Fundamentalist Today - THINK
> 128. God is so patient, it's as if he wasn't there.
> 129. Science doesn't burn you at the stake for disagreeing
> 130. Every creationist's kid is one less competitor for college.
> 131. If god wanted people to believe in him, why did he invent logic?
> 132. Creationism--Wholly Babble
> 133. Mommy, tell the the part again where Jesus says I am a
> disgusting sinner who deserves to be tortured in Hell!
> 134. Flatter Jesus or He'll torture you in Hell!
> 135. Here's The Deal you don't tell me about your personal savior, I
> don't tell you about my personal yeast infection
>
>
>
> > My favorite on this list: > 65. Don't pray in my school and I won't
> > think in your church.
>
> > LOL!
>
> > On Mar 2, 1:30 pm, BlueSci <blue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 4:16 pm, El Guapo <natezenmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ha ha! Thx for posting...
>
> > > > My additions:
>
> > > > 51. Jesus Loves Me But Only For My Tits (doesn't work for me, but
> > > > might for Trance - at which point Jesus and I are one)
>
> > > > 52. Thought about joining a church but I'm allergic to nuts
>
> > > > 53. Religion: the ultimate weapon of mass destruction
>
> > > > 54. Truth is my religion (and it doesn't have much to say about your
> > > > god)
>
> > > > 55. Jesus is coming - and he doesn't pull out
>
> > > > 56. So my choice is to believe I'm related to a monkey or believe the
> > > > one that's preaching?
>
> > > > 57. Cogito ergo dues non est
>
> > > > 58. To behave to avoid hell or just to get into heaven - that shows no
> > > > morals
>
> > > A few more:
>
> > > 59. God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
>
> > > 60. Born OK the first time
>
> > > 61. I found religion. I found it to be completely worthless.
>
> > > 62. Because all the works of science cannot equal the wisdom of
> > > cattle sacrificing primitives that thought that all the animal species
> > > in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
>
> > > 63. Christians aren't perfect. They just want you to be.
>
> > > 64. Stop using Jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded bigotted
> > > asshole.
>
> > > 65. Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
>
> > > 66. So many christians, not enough lions.
>
> > > 67. If Jesus saves, why is he always asking for money?
>
> > > 68. The problem with baptism is, they don't hold them under long
> > > enough
>
> > > 69. Read the bible. It will scare the hell out of you.
>
> > > 70. God is Santa Claus for adults.
>
> > > 71. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
>
> > > 72. WWJD?--Who Wants Jelly Donuts?
>
> > > 73. When religion ruled the world they called it the Dark Ages.
>
> > > 74. Religion is myth-information
>
> > > 75. Praying is begging.
>
> > > Gee, this is fun! Think we can find enough to make 100?
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 4:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > For your entertainment :-)
>
> > > > > Source:http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/15/the-top-50-atheist-aphorisms/
>
> > > > > 01.15.08
> > > > > The Top 50 Atheist Aphorisms
>
> > > > > Posted in Friendly Atheist at 7:06 am by Hemant Mehta
>
> > > > > An unofficial list of the "Top 50 Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker
> > > > > Aphorisms" according to... well, I'm not sure. But some are quite
> > > > > entertaining:
>
> > > > > 1. Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers
>
> > > > > 2. Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole
>
> > > > > 3. Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry
>
> > > > > 4. Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.
>
> > > > > 5. There's A REASON Why Atheists Don't Fly Planes Into
> > > > > Buildings
>
> > > > > 6. "Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice
> > > > > Day."- God.
>
> > > > > 7. God Doesn't Kill People. People Who Believe in God Kill
> > > > > People.
>
> > > > > 8. If There is No God, Then What Makes the Next Kleenex Pop Up?
>
> > > > > 9. He's Dead.
>
> > > > > It's Been 2,000 years.
> > > > > He's Not Coming Back.
> > > > > Get OVER It Already!
>
> > > > > 10. All religion is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed,
> > > > > imagination, and poetry. Edgar Allen Poe.
>
> > > > > 11. Viva La Evolución!
>
> > > > > 12. Actually, If You Look It Up, The Winter Solstice Is The
> > > > > Reason For The Season
>
> > > > > 13. I Wouldn't Trust Your God Even If He Did Exist
>
> > > > > 14. Cheeses Is Lard. Argue With THAT If You Can.
>
> > > > > 15. People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't
> > > > > Have Such Funny Beliefs
>
> > > > > 16. Jesus is Coming? Don't Swallow That.
>
> > > > > 17. Threatening Children With Hell Is FUN!
>
> > > > > 18. GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!
>
> > > > > 19. Jesus Told Me Republicans SUCK
>
> > > > > 20. God + Whacky Tobacky = Platypus
>
> > > > > 21. God Doesn't Exist. So, I Guess That Means No One Loves You.
>
> > > > > 22. When the Rapture Comes, We'll Get Our Country Back!
>
> > > > > 23. Q. How Do We Know the Holy Ghost Was Catholic?
> > > > > A. He Used the Rhythm Method Instead of a Condom.
>
> > > > > 24. You Say "Heretic" Like It Was a BAD Thing
>
> > > > > 25. I Love Christians. They Taste Like Chicken.
>
> > > > > 26. Science: It Works, Bitches.
>
> > > > > 27. "Intelligent Design" Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since
> > > > > 1987
>
> > > > > 28. I Found God Between The Sheets
>
> > > > > 29. I Gave Up Superstitious Mumbo Jumbo For Lent
>
> > > > > 30. My Flying Monkey Can Beat Up Your Guardian Angel
>
> > > > > 31. Every Time You Play With Yourself, God Kills a Kitten
>
> > > > > 32. If God Wanted People to Believe in Him, Then Why Did He
> > > > > Invent Logic?
>
> > > > > 33. Praying Is Politically Correct Schizophrenia
>
> > > > > 34. ALL Americans Are African Americans
>
> > > > > 35. I Forget - Which Day Did God Make All The Fossils?
>
> > > > > 36. I Was An Atheist Until The Hindus Convinced Me That I Was
> > > > > God
>
> > > > > 37. The Spanish Inquisition: The Original Faith-based Initiative
>
> > > > > 38. If we were made in his image, when why aren't humans
> > > > > invisible too?
>
> > > > > 39. JESUS SAVES....You From Thinking For Yourself
>
> > > > > 40. How Can You Disbelieve
>
> ...
>
> read more »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links