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: If you could end all religion...
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/cc3ac9df33ac05ea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 4:59 pm
From: random

That all depends on what the action is, and what is the price of this
simple action.

If the action is to somehow find and publish a definite proof that
there is no God, I would publish it, but I doubt it would bring the
result you describe.

All other actions I can think of are limited to forcing others what to
believe in or worse. In this case the price I pay is much higher than
what we gain.

On Mar 20, 11:51 pm, wiseclam <wisec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> If you could put an end to all religious thought with one realtively
> simple act would you do it? Why or why not?
>
> What are the pros and cons of taking such a step?
>
> Feel free to focus your answer around Christianity since this is AvC
> not AvR.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:00 pm
From: random

And while we're at it, what do you think about an opposite case?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:06 pm
From: Dag Yo

Oi, since I cannot think of any cons to this sort of scenario perhaps
you could explain a bit about what you were thinking of?

On Mar 20, 1:51 pm, wiseclam <wisec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> If you could put an end to all religious thought with one realtively
> simple act would you do it? Why or why not?
>
> What are the pros and cons of taking such a step?
>
> Feel free to focus your answer around Christianity since this is AvC
> not AvR.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Logical Proof For The Existence of God
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/9a4329f85b2b2252?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:04 pm
From: Dag Yo

> He basically wants a fish to give birth to a human, essentially.
I think you're right. Unfortunately he shows no interest in actually
educating himself with some high school level biology books, so I
suppose he will continue to demand a fish that gives birth to a human
and insist that some "spokeman" for atheism proved that the theory of
evolution is wrong [as if the theory of evolution and "Atheism" (you
know that capital letter is kinda growing on me) were even loosely
related topics]. The dude is a tool.

-
On Mar 20, 3:19 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:09 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have read your oversimplification ...
>
> > > And by what measure do you call it an "oversimplication"?
>
> > It's fine, thats sort of what my paper is called.
>
> > Nice response by the way. Also, i'm fucking amazed that this guy
> > argues against speciation but clearly (when he talks about Great Danes
> > and Chihuhuas) doesn't know what the word even means.
>
> He basically wants a fish to give birth to a human, essentially.
>
>
>
> > -
> > On Mar 20, 7:05 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 5:56 am, MSG <msg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have read your oversimplification ...
>
> > > And by what measure do you call it an "oversimplication"?
>
> > > > and it describes Micro
> > > > Evolution. It describes how things change over time within a species.
> > > > It does not, nor does it try to, give proof of how that species came
> > > > into existence in the first place. We all agree with Micro Evolution.
> > > > We all agree that you can take two dogs and, selectively breed them to
> > > > become either Great Danes or Chihuahua's. We have no problem with
> > > > that. But ... Great Danes and Chihuahua's are still **dogs**. They are
> > > > not proof for Macro Vertical Evolution! They have not become something
> > > > else--they are still dogs. And ... they have been limited by the
> > > > selective breeding.
>
> > > You do realize that you are using artificial classifications to impose
> > > some sort of actual barrier, don't you? We (as in mankind) invented
> > > those terms. And while we attempt to use objective means by which to
> > > classify animals the divisions we have created are, in part,
> > > arbitrary.
>
> > > That is, there difference between a chiuahua and a great dane, and the
> > > difference between a chiuahua and a flower is only a matter of degree.
> > > There is not some invisible barrier inherent in life that prevents it
> > > from becoming a different species because we invented that barrier in
> > > the first place! We created that distinction. The distinction between
> > > species is NOT inherent. The only difference between changes within
> > > species, changes within genuses, changes with familes, changes within
> > > order, changes within classes, changes within phyla, and changes
> > > within kingdoms is only a matter of degree relative to the artificial
> > > attributes we have invented to define those classifications.
>
> > > That is not to say that the hierarchal structure is baseless. Indeed
> > > it is based off of the structure that is evident from life since it is
> > > apparent that life has evolved in a hierarchal manner! If life did not
> > > evolve then there is no reason why the similarities and relationships
> > > would appear the way they do. That is, the pattern of life on the
> > > planet is evident of common ancestry.
>
> > > The point remaines, the difference between species is akin to the
> > > difference between frequncies of light.
>
> > > A chiuahua, great dane, and a flower are all living organisms.
> > > Red, Red orange, and Green are all colors
>
> > > Through incremental steps, one can get from a chiuahua to a great
> > > dane, and vice versa.
> > > Through incremental steps, one can get from red to red orange, and
> > > vice versa.
>
> > > The classification of a chuiahua and a great dane is mostly arbitrary.
> > > The classification of red and red orange is mostly arbitrary.
>
> > > The manner in which a chiuaha can become a great dane is the same
> > > manner in which it can become a flower.
> > > The manner in which red can become red orange is the same manner in
> > > which it can become green.
>
> > > Life is a spectrum. We have placed artificial barriers within that
> > > spectrum in the same way we have placed artificial barriers in the
> > > spectrum of colors: it's a matter of convience and a result of humans'
> > > natural tendacy to classify things.
>
> > > The barriers we have placed when classifying life seem inherent due to
> > > organisms not currently occupying all possible genetic combinations.
>
> > > > **Their DNA has lost some information**. You
> > > > cannot breed a Chihuahua from a pair of Great Danes. You can also not
> > > > breed a Great Dane from a pair of Chihuahua's!! Micro evolution, in
> > > > the way we discuss it here, therefore causes a type of 'devolution',
> > > > not evolution, as is commonly understood.
> > > > Also, proving Micro Evolution, which no one has a problem with, is not
> > > > the kind of proof needed to prove Macro Vertical Evolution. We need
> > > > proof that the first pair of dogs (or the first pair of any species!)
> > > > evolved in innumarable little steps from one-celled amoebae. That is
> > > > the real proof needed--**because that is the real claim made in the
> > > > Theory of Evolution**. Let's not muddy the waters. Let's not
> > > > concentrate on the wrong type of proof, as is usually done. Proof for
> > > > Micro Evolution is ***not*** proof of Macro Vertical Evolution,
> > > > **period**! Let's put all the cards face-up on the table, please.
> > > > I have not finished reading all the information in your other link. I
> > > > will get there some time.
>
> > > > On Mar 20, 12:37 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And here, because i'm feeling a little generous (even toward people
> > > > > who post insultingly stupid shit) I give you this link, it's short and
> > > > > to the point, you should be able to make sense of it:
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/evolution-...
>
> > > > > On Mar 19, 11:22 pm, MSG <msg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In the debate referred to Professor Flew admitted that there were only
> > > > > > two plausible possibilities for the existence of human beings;
> > > > > > Evolution, or Creation. Professor Flew was the leading spokesman for
> > > > > > Atheism at the time. The theory of evolution was disproved by
> > > > > > Professor Flew himself, by the way he answered certain questions. It
> > > > > > would be a good idea for you to go look at the debate.
>
> > > > > > On Mar 19, 1:05 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 19, 9:58 am, MSG <msg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > MSG writes
> > > > > > > > Yes, Random,
> > > > > > > > 1) You can easily find the previous threads you participated in using
> > > > > > > > your profile.
> > > > > > > > I could, and by rights I should, but I am not as active yet as I would
> > > > > > > > like to be. I tire easily. So sorry about jumping the gun a little.
>
> > > > > > > > 2) The division between macro and micro evolution simply doesn't
> > > > > > > > exist. There is no reason for the separation, and what proves one is
> > > > > > > > good enough for the other.
> > > > > > > > Yes, they do. It is one thing to prove that from one pair of **dogs**
> > > > > > > > you can breed eg. a 100 different types of **dogs**--this is merely
> > > > > > > > proof of micro evolution. It is another matter altogether to prove
> > > > > > > > that from those first pair of **dogs** you are able to breed eg. a
> > > > > > > > **horse** (which would be proof for vertical macro evolution, and at
> > > > > > > > this stage it is *proof* that does not exist--it is mere conjecture).
> > > > > > > > It is also
> > > > > > > > another thing to prove that those first pair of dogs came about by
> > > > > > > > multiple steps evolution from one-celled amoebae!! This would be the
> > > > > > > > real proof for Macro Evolution, and ... such proof does not exist, not
> > > > > > > > according to the Scientific Method!!
>
> > > > > > > In the previous thread you wrote, people provided you with
> > > > > > > explanations and links to detailed explanations.
> > > > > > > You can't both require a proof, refuse to read it because you are too
> > > > > > > tired and then post the same thing again.
>
> > > > > > > > 3) I don't see any connection between disproving a scientific theory,
> > > > > > > > and proving God exists.
> > > > > > > > I do!! See, there are only two possibilities.
> > > > > > > > A. Man came into existence by Evolution, or
> > > > > > > > B. Man came into existence by Creation.
> > > > > > > > If Macro Evolution cannot be proved, and it has not been proved by the
> > > > > > > > Scientific Method, then man must have come about by creation.
>
> > > > > > > The logical opposite of "Man came into existence by Evolution" is "Man
> > > > > > > came into existence by something other that Evolution".
> > > > > > > Theoretically speaking, the theory of evolution can be replaced with a
> > > > > > > third option that isn't evolution or creation.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 4:30 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Simp, perhaps you missed one of the original examples: "Paul is
> > > > > > > > > tall."
> > > > > > > > > Did you see that? That was an example of a tautology. It is the same
> > > > > > > > > as Paul is tall and Paul is tall.
> > > > > > > > > In the proof I presented, (God is.), this is the same as "God is and
> > > > > > > > > god is".
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 4:17 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 4:12 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, in this context, it is a logical form. Perhaps not one that you
> > > > > > > > > > > are familiar with.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No I am not, and neither is it correct to say that it is in logical
> > > > > > > > > > form.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Logical form is IF P THEN Q.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Which is what the example shows.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Example: "If neither John nor Betty is here, then John is not here."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > As to my being disingenuous, no, I saw that sentence you just posted
> > > > > > > > > > > and thought because it did use a form that you are attempting to apply
> > > > > > > > > > > to all of tautology I wouldn't use it to not muddy the waters of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Religion, Civil Rights, Discrimination
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c8dd5c850033a6e1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:06 pm
From: bob600

On 18 Mar, 21:35, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bob600 replies:- I think you will find that its very relevant whether
> > or not a law is relevant, in fact that the main point. Why would
> > anyone other than a total brain dead moron like you want to argue
> > about the minor applications of a non relevant law while ignoring the
> > fact that the law is not actually relevant to anyone. Its a bit like
> > getting run over by a tank and complaining that it damaged your watch,
> > so get your head out of your ass and open your eyes, even if your
> > incapable of opening your mind.
>
> I think you are wrong, I think it is in societies best interest to
> keep it's citizens alive and healthy.

Bob600 replies2:- Not the stupid ones, but then we are back to Darwin
again.
>
> > Bob600 replies:- Its in all of our best interests to have people do
> > whatever they like with no interference from the "powers that be" so
> > long as it causes no harm to others.
>
> Deaths and injuries do harm others, they harm families that depend on
> that person for their welfare, they depend on them to stay happy, they
> depend on them to keep the economy moving smoothly. Just because
> someone wants to be stupid is no reason to think that there shouldn't
> be anything at all in place to stop them.

Bob600 replies2:- Granted that death is likely to make someone
unhappy, but thats no reason create laws to stop stupid people killing
themselves. The next stage is to accept that life also makes some
people unhappy, being married to a nagging wife, losing money on the
horses, having an affair with the wife's sister, and create laws to
stop people doing those things because it may make someone unhappy.
And how do you not know that the next of kin despised the person who
got killed without a crash helmet but stands to inherit the insurance
money and will use it to buy a toy boy, they will not be sad.
>
> > Unlike you I have no wish to have
> > a government, that most likely I did not even vote for, telling me how
> > to live my life. If you need someone to wipe your nose then run home
> > to mama thats her job not the governments.
>
> I don't mind a government that protects my mother from harm thanks.
> There is no question that maximum speed limits saves many lives a
> year, undoubtedly some of those lives saved are those of mothers. I
> rather thank the government for doing that. You either need to think
> a bit harder about what you're saying or you need to add a few more
> layers of aluminum to your hat.

Bob600 replies2:- You never said that your mother was biker who would
not wear a helmet unless there was a law making her, and you are her
son so its up to you to insist that she dresses in the proper
protective clothing before hopping on her Harley. And I never said
that sensible laws should not exist that physically protect OTHERS
from stupid people, just that laws should not exist to protect stupid
people from themselves. And I say that as an ex-biker who never had a
helmet never mind wear one. I suspect that a biker flying off his bike
and striking an innocent pedestrian (if there is such a thing) is
likely to do more damage with his helmet than his unprotected head.
>
> > > No it isn't, and neither is Darwinism some sort of ideal to be upheld,
> > > it's a natural process that describes what happens as living things
> > > compete for limited resources. Take a biology class dipshit.
>
> > Bob600 replies:- Perhaps you are right, after all you seem to have got
> > through the selection process, there is always the exception to the
> > rule.
>
> Yeah, i'm absolutely right, unless you think there is some specific
> biological instinct that causes Sihk males, under the age of say 15,
> to ride motorcycles without a helmet, then what you're talking about
> is just completely stupid. And even if such a thing existed
> specifically in that one small population (which it fucking doesn't)
> it certainly isn't in the best interest of the human race to see all
> of them dead for it anyway.

Bob600 replies2:- It would seem that putting religion before the law
of the land is perfectly acceptable to you, and you would like to
protect all those who do so. Don't you ask yourself why there is so
much religious trouble throughout the world, its people putting
religion before the law off the land, and in some cases not even their
land. Sorry, but if you put your religion first and get hurt because
of it, sad, perhaps others will learn from your fate and the world
will be a much happier place because of your sacrifice.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ddd4027c91eb7af8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:08 pm
From: Drafterman

On Mar 20, 6:10 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When people deny God, they deny sin. If you deny your offenses against
> God and man, you deny that we are all flawed and in need of constant
> love and forgiveness. If you refuse to be forgiven, you will become
> proud because you will have believed the lie (from guess who?) that
> you are perfect, without sin, or even worse, that you are inherently
> better / smarter / etc. than your fellow human being (pride). It is
> this pride which blinds you and doesn't let you see the truth. As long
> as you are blind, the devil can lead you anywhere he wants without you
> knowing it. He can rob you, cheat you, mock you, and you wouldn't know
> the difference. He may even convince you t do it to yourself. All the
> while, you will think you were wise and good, but in reality, you
> based it all upon a lie. Lies use other lies to cover themselves up.
> But truth admits mistakes, accepts forgiveness, accepts God, and
> reconciles with anyone they have had arguments with.

A wholly incorrect interpretation of reality. Allow me to correct it
for you:

When people deny God, they accept personal responsibility. Denying God
certainly necessitates the rejection of the concept of transgressing
against God but, in now way, necessitates rejecting the concept of
transgressiong against man. It is transgression against man that we
need be primarily concerned with. Rejecting God eliminates an
unnecessary element and allows us to concentrate on our relationship
with our fellow man, fostering that rather than some imagined
relationship with a fictional sky pixie. Refusing forgiveness from a
nonexistent entity requires only rationality, not pride, ego, or some
concept about being perfect. Inventing a God entity is not necessary
to realize that we are flawed, but rejecting that God entity forces us
to deal with those flaws in the hear and now, rather than fantasizing
about some paradise in the after life if you hold some trivial belief.
Belief in God detracts from the hear and now, the only reality we will
ever have. It makes us less human. It is, rather, belief in God that
fosters pride, since you believe that you and you alone have the
answers and the one true way. Essentially you have stopped looking for
answers to the great questions in life because you egotistically think
you already have them. It is you who are blind to the truth because
you have closed your mind and stopped your search for it. Life and
reality is not something for which there is a final answer and
everything is well (as you would have it be) but a constantly changing
thing for which new questions are always arising and requires
maintenance to keep it livable. Humanities work as far as learning and
evolving will never be done. So why don't you just step aside and let
us get some real work done?
>
> "Hatred stirs up disputes, but love covers all offenses." (Proverbs
> 10:12)
>
> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yep, as I noted, sin makes it easy to see failings in other people,
> > but not ones self.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:42 pm
From: Evolved Atheist

does god deserve a capital g?

On Mar 21, 5:08 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:10 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When people deny God, they deny sin. If you deny your offenses against
> > God and man, you deny that we are all flawed and in need of constant
> > love and forgiveness. If you refuse to be forgiven, you will become
> > proud because you will have believed the lie (from guess who?) that
> > you are perfect, without sin, or even worse, that you are inherently
> > better / smarter / etc. than your fellow human being (pride). It is
> > this pride which blinds you and doesn't let you see the truth. As long
> > as you are blind, the devil can lead you anywhere he wants without you
> > knowing it. He can rob you, cheat you, mock you, and you wouldn't know
> > the difference. He may even convince you t do it to yourself. All the
> > while, you will think you were wise and good, but in reality, you
> > based it all upon a lie. Lies use other lies to cover themselves up.
> > But truth admits mistakes, accepts forgiveness, accepts God, and
> > reconciles with anyone they have had arguments with.
>
> A wholly incorrect interpretation of reality. Allow me to correct it
> for you:
>
> When people deny God, they accept personal responsibility. Denying God
> certainly necessitates the rejection of the concept of transgressing
> against God but, in now way, necessitates rejecting the concept of
> transgressiong against man. It is transgression against man that we
> need be primarily concerned with. Rejecting God eliminates an
> unnecessary element and allows us to concentrate on our relationship
> with our fellow man, fostering that rather than some imagined
> relationship with a fictional sky pixie. Refusing forgiveness from a
> nonexistent entity requires only rationality, not pride, ego, or some
> concept about being perfect. Inventing a God entity is not necessary
> to realize that we are flawed, but rejecting that God entity forces us
> to deal with those flaws in the hear and now, rather than fantasizing
> about some paradise in the after life if you hold some trivial belief.
> Belief in God detracts from the hear and now, the only reality we will
> ever have. It makes us less human. It is, rather, belief in God that
> fosters pride, since you believe that you and you alone have the
> answers and the one true way. Essentially you have stopped looking for
> answers to the great questions in life because you egotistically think
> you already have them. It is you who are blind to the truth because
> you have closed your mind and stopped your search for it. Life and
> reality is not something for which there is a final answer and
> everything is well (as you would have it be) but a constantly changing
> thing for which new questions are always arising and requires
> maintenance to keep it livable. Humanities work as far as learning and
> evolving will never be done. So why don't you just step aside and let
> us get some real work done?
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Hatred stirs up disputes, but love covers all offenses." (Proverbs
> > 10:12)
>
> > On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yep, as I noted, sin makes it easy to see failings in other people,
> > > but not ones self.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:10 pm
From: Drafterman

On Mar 20, 8:42 pm, Evolved Atheist <hunky_big...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> does god deserve a capital g?

Capital letters are not an honor bestow for some accomplishment. That
is, it isn't about someone or something "deserving" the capital
letter. In this case it is merely an identifier that signifies I am
talking about the Christian God as opposed to just a generic god
concept. Now, personally I don't see a difference. Yahweh, God, Allah,
Vishnu, Odin, they're all faerie tale concepts and my description is
just as accurate when applied to them as when applied to God. But some
Christians have a very severe martyr complex and have already taken
issue if I talk about god with a small "g". So I thought I'd just
remove one less thing they can use to derail the conversation away
from something meaningful.

>
> On Mar 21, 5:08 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:10 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When people deny God, they deny sin. If you deny your offenses against
> > > God and man, you deny that we are all flawed and in need of constant
> > > love and forgiveness. If you refuse to be forgiven, you will become
> > > proud because you will have believed the lie (from guess who?) that
> > > you are perfect, without sin, or even worse, that you are inherently
> > > better / smarter / etc. than your fellow human being (pride). It is
> > > this pride which blinds you and doesn't let you see the truth. As long
> > > as you are blind, the devil can lead you anywhere he wants without you
> > > knowing it. He can rob you, cheat you, mock you, and you wouldn't know
> > > the difference. He may even convince you t do it to yourself. All the
> > > while, you will think you were wise and good, but in reality, you
> > > based it all upon a lie. Lies use other lies to cover themselves up.
> > > But truth admits mistakes, accepts forgiveness, accepts God, and
> > > reconciles with anyone they have had arguments with.
>
> > A wholly incorrect interpretation of reality. Allow me to correct it
> > for you:
>
> > When people deny God, they accept personal responsibility. Denying God
> > certainly necessitates the rejection of the concept of transgressing
> > against God but, in now way, necessitates rejecting the concept of
> > transgressiong against man. It is transgression against man that we
> > need be primarily concerned with. Rejecting God eliminates an
> > unnecessary element and allows us to concentrate on our relationship
> > with our fellow man, fostering that rather than some imagined
> > relationship with a fictional sky pixie. Refusing forgiveness from a
> > nonexistent entity requires only rationality, not pride, ego, or some
> > concept about being perfect. Inventing a God entity is not necessary
> > to realize that we are flawed, but rejecting that God entity forces us
> > to deal with those flaws in the hear and now, rather than fantasizing
> > about some paradise in the after life if you hold some trivial belief.
> > Belief in God detracts from the hear and now, the only reality we will
> > ever have. It makes us less human. It is, rather, belief in God that
> > fosters pride, since you believe that you and you alone have the
> > answers and the one true way. Essentially you have stopped looking for
> > answers to the great questions in life because you egotistically think
> > you already have them. It is you who are blind to the truth because
> > you have closed your mind and stopped your search for it. Life and
> > reality is not something for which there is a final answer and
> > everything is well (as you would have it be) but a constantly changing
> > thing for which new questions are always arising and requires
> > maintenance to keep it livable. Humanities work as far as learning and
> > evolving will never be done. So why don't you just step aside and let
> > us get some real work done?
>
> > > "Hatred stirs up disputes, but love covers all offenses." (Proverbs
> > > 10:12)
>
> > > On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yep, as I noted, sin makes it easy to see failings in other people,
> > > > but not ones self.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poll: Most Misused Words/Terms on AvC
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/bbad87630f3d08a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:32 pm
From: "Phillip Montgomery"

Brock:
That was a funny cartoon. You've got a point about math. I remember
reading a book once that said math was strange in that it began with objects
in the real world and then rose into its own little universe of things that
don't really exist in reality.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Brock <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mar 19, 9:10 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > (3)
> > "Faith" - 3 points
> > Faith is the mudslinger word used by many among the faithful to
> discredit
> > atheism. Apparently by trying to take atheism down to their own level,
> the
> > faithful think they will have discredited it by giving it the same
> > plausibility as their own religions. Sadly, such tactics do not betray
> a
> > very high opinion of one's self.
>
> http://arts.net4free.org/dlazechk/weekdaymath65.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
> >
>

--
Phillip Montgomery
Blog at
http://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Bible as a Science Fiction Short Story (by Dev)
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/9aaca0c74969cf31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:36 pm
From: Dev

Here is the liberal Christian philosophy in a nutshell: God is
perfectly moral, but the less a human acts like Him the more moral he
or she is.

On Mar 20, 10:10 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's amusing is that when confronted with people who perform the
> acts that God allegedly did, everyone considers them immoral. When GOD
> does them, however, they just think it's all fine and dandy. Then they
> wonder why we think they have no consistency.
>
> On Mar 20, 10:30 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, Brock, was Rod a good guy or a bad guy and why? :)
>
> > On Mar 20, 7:13 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 10:07 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Its objective wonderfulness lies beyond Brock's capacity to
> > > > understand.
>
> > > I prefer the Bible.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Law and Order
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c3347e150f4895b2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:54 pm
From: LL

LL: Adultery in biblical times was a property crime. A married man who
had sex with a single women was not committing adultery. He committed
adultery only if he had sex with another man's wife (the other man's
property). Having sex with a single woman would be fornication, but it
probably wasn't enforced. Women, even married women, could not commit
adultery, But a man could probably kill his wife and her partner with
impunity if she engaged in fornication.

"It is clear scripture itself has no prohibition against singles sex,
only what has been added by Church tradition. Adultery is more
complex. The Jews understood "Thou shalt not commit adultery" very
differently than Church tradition. It only applied to men if they had
intercourse with someone else's wife. But it was allowable for a
married man to have intercourse with a single woman. Adultery was the
sin of "trespassing" on a man's property. Until marriage women were
the property of their fathers. After marriage they became the property
of their husband."http://www.libchrist.com/bible/adultery.html

On Mar 20, 11:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:26 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: "LL" <llp...@aol.com>
> > Subject: [AvC] Re: Law and Order
>
> > > On Mar 20, 8:01 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I've never committed adultery. I'd be willing to bet a huge number of
> > >> us here are also not been guilty of adultery.
>
> > > LL: I'd be willing to wager that a larger percentage of Chrisians have
> > > done so than atheists.
>
> > Is it considered adultery if my wife likes to have sex with multiple large
> > black while I take pictures?
>
> Well you'll be reassured to know that as long as they're not your
> neighbors and not "other men's wives" it seems to be acceptable. After
> all, you're the boss ...
>
> Job 31:1
> "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.
>
> Jeremiah 5:8
> They are well-fed, lusty stallions, each neighing for another man's
> wife.
>
> 9 Should I not punish them for this?"
> declares the LORD.
> "Should I not avenge myself
> on such a nation as this?
>
> 10 "Go through her vineyards and ravage them,
> but do not destroy them completely.
> Strip off her branches,
> for these people do not belong to the LORD.
>
> Exodus 20
> 17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet
> your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
> donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:04 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Mar 20, 8:54 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: Adultery in biblical times was a property crime. A married man who
> had sex with a single women was not committing adultery. He committed
> adultery only if he had sex with another man's wife (the other man's
> property). Having sex with a single woman would be fornication, but it
> probably wasn't enforced. Women, even married women, could not commit
> adultery, But a man could probably kill his wife and her partner with
> impunity if she engaged in fornication.
>
> "It is clear scripture itself has no prohibition against singles sex,
> only what has been added by Church tradition. Adultery is more
> complex. The Jews understood "Thou shalt not commit adultery" very
> differently than Church tradition. It only applied to men if they had
> intercourse with someone else's wife. But it was allowable for a
> married man to have intercourse with a single woman. Adultery was the
> sin of "trespassing" on a man's property. Until marriage women were
> the property of their fathers. After marriage they became the property
> of their husband."http://www.libchrist.com/bible/adultery.html

Ah. Nice explanation. LL. Although I was just joking around ;-).

Now presumably in Zencycles scenario it still wouldn't be adultery
because hubby gave the ok?

>
> On Mar 20, 11:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 2:26 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > From: "LL" <llp...@aol.com>
> > > Subject: [AvC] Re: Law and Order
>
> > > > On Mar 20, 8:01 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> I've never committed adultery. I'd be willing to bet a huge number of
> > > >> us here are also not been guilty of adultery.
>
> > > > LL: I'd be willing to wager that a larger percentage of Chrisians have
> > > > done so than atheists.
>
> > > Is it considered adultery if my wife likes to have sex with multiple large
> > > black while I take pictures?
>
> > Well you'll be reassured to know that as long as they're not your
> > neighbors and not "other men's wives" it seems to be acceptable. After
> > all, you're the boss ...
>
> > Job 31:1
> > "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.
>
> > Jeremiah 5:8
> > They are well-fed, lusty stallions, each neighing for another man's
> > wife.
>
> > 9 Should I not punish them for this?"
> > declares the LORD.
> > "Should I not avenge myself
> > on such a nation as this?
>
> > 10 "Go through her vineyards and ravage them,
> > but do not destroy them completely.
> > Strip off her branches,
> > for these people do not belong to the LORD.
>
> > Exodus 20
> > 17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet
> > your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
> > donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:15 pm
From: rappoccio

On Mar 20, 5:06 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:56 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 4:33 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 2:22 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 20, 3:16 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 20, 1:07 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > This is not as much a question about moral code and morality, or the
> > > > > > > weaknesses in a moral system, as it is a question about how would
> > > > > > > *you*, simonsaysbye, ostensibly a Christian, know whether or not God
> > > > > > > told someone to stone someone else?
>
> > > > > > Hi Simpleton. I guess I would know it my thinking that stoning
> > > > > > someone is not part of how Christians are to treat people who have
> > > > > > done the wrong thing. This does not clarify anything I have not said
> > > > > > in my previous post, so I am guessing I am not understanding your
> > > > > > question, but if you clarify you will get a Christian who will do his
> > > > > > best to answer honestly.
>
> > > > > A man stones his mother to death and claims that God told him to do
> > > > > so.
>
> > > > > How can *you* determine whether or not his claim is correct? For now,
> > > > > assume that you do not have to prove that God exists.
>
> > > > Maybe we'll keep asking and they'll finally answer.
>
> > > Hopefully, the question that was asked. That would be even better.
>
> > Here's an interesting point:
>
> > Is this the clincher for atheism? Is this the one single question that
> > we can ask to which theists do not have any answer?
>
> > It certainly was for me. I realized the consequences of this single
> > question, and realized that "divine revelation" was a load of crap
> > because no one REALLY believes in it. They believe in it when it is
> > convenient for them to wriggle out of an argument, but in the same
> > breath will claim that someone else's argument is wrong based on
> > PRECISELY the criticisms that we state about their own positions.
>
> > In my mind, this question is the single most convincing argument for
> > atheism.
>
> It certainly is a simple call to reason when someone wants to know
> "why don't you believe?"
>
> Note that most Christians start evading the discussion when it is
> asked. It is when their inconsistency comes to light and--what was
> astonishing to watch--their use of really poor apologetics: "Just
> because you cannot see God does not mean he does not exist. After all
> you cannot see all the galaxies, but you know they all exist"
>
> ("Why don't you believe I have fathered 30000007 children?" is only
> the latest example)
>
> And I say that regardless of the answer, just on the basis that there
> are Christians who will on many occasions fall on different sides of
> the issue. There will be some who will state "No, the man was not
> instructed by God, and here's why", and others "Yes, here's why".
> Clearly, at least one side is incorrect. And how is that determined.
>
> This is the single most baffling part of how I find people to have
> belief in a goatherder account of Moses talking to a burning bush
> (ALONE) and determining that Moses was indeed talking to God.
>
> I submit that such belief is inculcated pastorally, and probably the
> only way it remains as a belief.

Right. This is where all of the tail-chasing answers start. The short
answer is that they can't actually uniquely distinguish, of course.
The honest ones will tell you (like OldMan or PD). What this means, to
me, is that these "revelations" are suspect at best and give us no
information. This renders the "subjective experience" part of the
argument for the existence of God to be effectively ineffectual in my
opinion.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:17 pm
From: rappoccio

Herding chickens comes to mind.

Just watch the video of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennet on the
RDF. The most outspoken atheists of the day really don't agree about
everything either. But they all have arguments for or against all of
their positions, same or different.

On Mar 20, 5:06 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Simply because there is no such thing as an "atheist mob".
> Not all atheists think alike. They are all different, and hence
> they are not a mob.
>
> On Mar 21, 7:14 am, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, you are projecting. Why can you just answer the question on the
> > atheist mobs?
>
> > On Mar 20, 3:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 5:00 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Like a child, someone who is afraid rarely admits that he is afraid
> > > > but fear usually shows itself.
> > > > And what was there to be disgusted about? The atheist mobs who wanted
> > > > to rape two young men who were in Lot's house?
>
> > > As I expected. One, you're projecting. Two, blaming all the "evil" on
> > > the atheists. Three, Yup you find it acceptable.
>
> > > Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> > > > On Mar 20, 11:59 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 20, 12:26 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The atheists are as delusional as the fictional character mentioned.
> > > > > > They are as stuck in ancient time as he was and actually afraid of the
> > > > > > stoning, imagine that.
> > > > > > The law of the ancient times without exception all treated girls as
> > > > > > personal possessions that can be bought and sold for a camel or two.
> > > > > > Like when Lot offered his daughters to the mobs in the OT, a
> > > > > > contemporary person would have seen that as a lawful and compassionate
> > > > > > act considering his times and his circumstances. The atheists on the
> > > > > > other hand, are all shocked and fearful because of it. They are stuck
> > > > > > in time and actually afraid of being bought, sold or given awa, even
> > > > > > now, imagine that.
>
> > > > > Projecting?
>
> > > > > No we're not afraid. We just think the things like the story of Lot's
> > > > > daughters is quite disgusting.
>
> > > > > Why don't you?
>
> > > > > > On Mar 20, 6:17 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:14 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Exactly. Rapp. Finally someone who gets it.
>
> > > > > > > > Law is often based on and reflects the morality of the times.
>
> > > > > > > > Morality, however, is determined by the existing philosophies and
> > > > > > > > cultures of the civilization at a particular point in time.
>
> > > > > > > > Morality is not limited to the law.
>
> > > > > > > Furthermore, liberal Christians follow Secular morality when they
> > > > > > > determine these things are wrong, Not Biblical morality.
>
> > > > > > > Something they don't seem to want to acknowledge or recognize.
>
> > > > > > > They just rewrite the book claiming "correct interpretation" to
> > > > > > > justify it.
>
> > > > > > > Something you've pointed out and shown many times in the past.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:06 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 5:31 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 5:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Tonight's episode of Law and Order was fantastic.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Summary: Son stones his adulterous mother to death and claims God told
> > > > > > > > > > > him (he was demonstrated to have TLE). Son is proclaimed as a prophet
> > > > > > > > > > > by a cult.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (Incidentally, like Brock and others, he avoided the question "How do
> > > > > > > > > > > you know God told you this?" to which he replied "I know it as well as
> > > > > > > > > > > I know I'm sitting here." which of course, doesn't actually answer the
> > > > > > > > > > > question.)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The interesting points were this:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) A judge ruled that being under the influence of temporal lobe
> > > > > > > > > > > epilepsy were mentally incompetent (later reversed).
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) The whole "Jesus says don't stone adulterers" crap went out the
> > > > > > > > > > > window, since God told him to do it.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) Christian rhetoric was easily used to justify murder.
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) Malleable children were brainwashed by religious zealots with no
> > > > > > > > > > > second thoughts.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > We're not the only ones who see the writing on the wall when
> > > > > > > > > > > fundamentalist nonsense is used to advocate violence.
>
> > > > > > > > > > So here is the question:> Now, the question to Christians is: Of course this is fiction. However
> > > > > > > > > > > let's pretend it's true. How could you tell that such a person who was
> > > > > > > > > > > professed to be under the direction of God was NOT, in fact, justified
> > > > > > > > > > > in stoning his mother to death because God told him to?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Here is a reponse:
>
> > > > > > > > > > I think most Christians would not have much difficulty determining for
> > > > > > > > > > themselves that when a husband murders an adulterous partner the act
> > > > > > > > > > is morally wrong. It is recorded that Jesus wanted people to love
> > > > > > > > > > their enemies, and under such terms it is not unreasonable to think
> > > > > > > > > > that loving your wife and family is pretty much taken for granted
> > > > > > > > > > (although there is no need to take this for granted, there exists
> > > > > > > > > > texts in the New Testament that husbands are to love their wives).
> > > > > > > > > > Other texts in the New Testament state that loving a person means
> > > > > > > > > > being willing to give up your life for that person, and in that light
> > > > > > > > > > it is not unreasonable to infer that loving a person is not about
> > > > > > > > > > taking that other person's life if they have broken trust with you, as
> > > > > > > > > > happens in adultery.
>
> > > > > > > > > In the episode, the child thought he was helping his mother cleanse
> > > > > > > > > her soul and was helping her get into heaven, because he loved her and
> > > > > > > > > God told him to do it in one of his "religious trances".
>
> > > > > > > > > How do you demonstrate that God did NOT, in fact, tell this person to
> > > > > > > > > kill their mother to cleanse her soul?
>
> > > > > > > > > > But quite apart from a general moral framework about how we are treat
> > > > > > > > > > each other, and taking into account the general virtues of Christian
> > > > > > > > > > living (kindness, gentleness, humbleness) that do not in any way
> > > > > > > > > > correspond with murdering your wife,
>
> > > > > > > > > Actually it was the kid's mother.
>
> > > > > > > > > > there is also a biblical ethic
> > > > > > > > > > that establishes the sanctity of human life (both men and women), the
> > > > > > > > > > wrongness of murdering someone (and especially someone who is not a
> > > > > > > > > > threat to the security of your life, family, or country), and the need
> > > > > > > > > > for Christians to submit to the laws of the society or country in
> > > > > > > > > > which they live.
>
> > > > > > > > > But this person was purported to talk directly to God. How do you know
> > > > > > > > > it would not be the case? How do you know that God did NOT, in fact,
> > > > > > > > > tell him to murder his mother to cleanse her soul?
>
> > > > > > > > > > As such, if a person was under the belief that god was telling them to
> > > > > > > > > > do something that so apparently contradicts the basic standards of
> > > > > > > > > > Christian moral belief, I don't think that a Christian today would be
> > > > > > > > > > that hard pressed to conclude that such a person was deluded and the
> > > > > > > > > > act not justified.
>
> > > > > > > > > I didn't ask how Christians would be justified in their belief, I
> > > > > > > > > asked how they would KNOW, for CERTAIN, that he was wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, it is not that difficult to create hypothetical scenarios
> > > > > > > > > > that would bring to light difficulties in alternative moral frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > that an atheist might use in place of a religious one: no moral system
> > > > > > > > > > is without weaknesses or vulnerabilities.
>
> > > > > > > > > Try me.
>
> > > > > > > > > > A moral code based on
> > > > > > > > > > utility might find it difficult to press charges again a doctor who
> > > > > > > > > > murders an elderly terminally-ill patient in order to save the lives
> > > > > > > > > > of 15 other terminally-ill patients in their mid-twenties.
>
> > > > > > > > > That depends on if the elderly person wanted to die or not. Otherwise
> > > > > > > > > it's still murder. It was murder with some justification, but it's
> > > > > > > > > still murder.
>
> > > > > > > > > Next.
>
> > > > > > > > > > A moral
> > > > > > > > > > code based on personal preference might find it hard to invalidate the
> > > > > > > > > > internal 'rightness' in a spouse who murders an adulterous partner.
>
> > > > > > > > > This one's a no brainer. It's murder without a valid justification at
> > > > > > > > > all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > > > > moral code based on social law and order alone might have difficulty
> > > > > > > > > > articulating its moral code in terms of 'good' and 'evil', despite the
> > > > > > > > > > fact that the majority of people in its society operate and live by
> > > > > > > > > > morals expressed exactly in those terms.
>
> > > > > > > > > Morals aren't based on social law and order whatsoever. It is immoral
> > > > > > > > > to lie to your life partner and have sex with someone else, but it is
> > > > > > > > > not, and should not, be illegal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Brock Organ autistic?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/f09d8f85fa6b3549?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:55 pm
From: Dev

From ourspecialkids.org: "Autism impacts the normal development of the
brain in the areas of social interaction and communication skills.
Children and adults with autism typically have difficulties in verbal
and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or play
activities. The disorder makes it hard for them to communicate with
others and relate to the outside world. In some cases, aggressive and/
or self-injurious behavior may be present. Persons with autism may
exhibit repeated body movements (hand flapping, rocking), unusual
responses to people or attachments to objects and resistance to
changes in routines."

Now, what we're going to do here is examine how Brock responded to
people on a recent thread, which is pretty much how he always does it,
and then I will re-post a segment from the movie _Rain Man_, about an
autistic man played by Dustin Hoffman named Raymond.

---

From the science fiction story thread:

Brock: Not a particularly great story.

Drafterman (making fun of something Brock has repeated a million
times): Its objective truth is independent of your beliefs.

Brock: My point was that its not a particularly great story.

bonfly: Its objective wonderfulness lies beyond Brock's capacity to
understand.

Brock: I prefer the Bible.

Drafterman: Its objective greatness is independent of your beliefs.

Brock: I prefer the Bible.

Drafterman (still miming Brock): Its objective greatness in excess of
that of the Bible is independent
of your preferences.

Brock: Just pointing out that I prefer the Bible. :)

rappoccio: Still pointing out that the stories are identical.

Brock: I prefer the Bible.

---

From _Rain Man_:

Raymond: These are not boxer shorts. Mine are boxer shorts. These are
Hanes 32.

Charlie: Underwear is underwear, Ray.

Raymond: My boxer shorts have my name and it says Raymond.

Charlie: All right, when we pass the store, we'll pick you up a pair
of boxer shorts.

Raymond: I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.

Charlie: We're not going back to Cincinnati, Ray, so don't even start
with that.

Raymond: Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart.

Charlie: [Pulls over, gets out of the car and yells] WHAT DIFFERENCE
DOES IT MAKE WHERE YOU BUY UNDERWEAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
UNDERWEAR IS UNDERWEAR! IT IS UNDERWEAR WHEREVER YOU BUY IT! IN
CINCINNATI OR WHEREVER!

Raymond: K-Mart!

Charlie: You know what I think, Ray? I think this autism is a bunch of
shit! Because you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!

Raymond: Boxer shorts. K-Mart!

---

Now, obviously Deidzoeb if he's reading will bitch about how this is
politically incorrect towards autistic people and blah blah blah, but
hopefully his mouth is a little preoccupied with Mike's dick at the
moment. You've got to admit the resemblance here is uncanny. What do
you think, guys? Is Broke Organ autistic?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:06 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Mar 20, 8:55 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> From ourspecialkids.org: "Autism impacts the normal development of the
> brain in the areas of social interaction and communication skills.
> Children and adults with autism typically have difficulties in verbal
> and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or play
> activities. The disorder makes it hard for them to communicate with
> others and relate to the outside world. In some cases, aggressive and/
> or self-injurious behavior may be present. Persons with autism may
> exhibit repeated body movements (hand flapping, rocking), unusual
> responses to people or attachments to objects and resistance to
> changes in routines."
>
> Now, what we're going to do here is examine how Brock responded to
> people on a recent thread, which is pretty much how he always does it,
> and then I will re-post a segment from the movie _Rain Man_, about an
> autistic man played by Dustin Hoffman named Raymond.
>
> ---
>
> From the science fiction story thread:
>
> Brock: Not a particularly great story.
>
> Drafterman (making fun of something Brock has repeated a million
> times): Its objective truth is independent of your beliefs.
>
> Brock: My point was that its not a particularly great story.
>
> bonfly: Its objective wonderfulness lies beyond Brock's capacity to
> understand.
>
> Brock: I prefer the Bible.
>
> Drafterman: Its objective greatness is independent of your beliefs.
>
> Brock: I prefer the Bible.
>
> Drafterman (still miming Brock): Its objective greatness in excess of
> that of the Bible is independent
> of your preferences.
>
> Brock: Just pointing out that I prefer the Bible. :)
>
> rappoccio: Still pointing out that the stories are identical.
>
> Brock: I prefer the Bible.
>
> ---
>
> From _Rain Man_:
>
> Raymond: These are not boxer shorts. Mine are boxer shorts. These are
> Hanes 32.
>
> Charlie: Underwear is underwear, Ray.
>
> Raymond: My boxer shorts have my name and it says Raymond.
>
> Charlie: All right, when we pass the store, we'll pick you up a pair
> of boxer shorts.
>
> Raymond: I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.
>
> Charlie: We're not going back to Cincinnati, Ray, so don't even start
> with that.
>
> Raymond: Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart.
>
> Charlie: [Pulls over, gets out of the car and yells] WHAT DIFFERENCE
> DOES IT MAKE WHERE YOU BUY UNDERWEAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
> UNDERWEAR IS UNDERWEAR! IT IS UNDERWEAR WHEREVER YOU BUY IT! IN
> CINCINNATI OR WHEREVER!
>
> Raymond: K-Mart!
>
> Charlie: You know what I think, Ray? I think this autism is a bunch of
> shit! Because you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!
>
> Raymond: Boxer shorts. K-Mart!
>
> ---
>
> Now, obviously Deidzoeb if he's reading will bitch about how this is
> politically incorrect towards autistic people and blah blah blah, but
> hopefully his mouth is a little preoccupied with Mike's dick at the
> moment. You've got to admit the resemblance here is uncanny. What do
> you think, guys? Is Broke Organ autistic?

Too Funny!!

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:07 pm
From: Drafterman

I think the resemblance is uncanny.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:08 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Mar 20, 5:55 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> From ourspecialkids.org: "Autism impacts the normal development of the
> brain in the areas of social interaction and communication skills.
> Children and adults with autism typically have difficulties in verbal
> and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or play
> activities. The disorder makes it hard for them to communicate with
> others and relate to the outside world. In some cases, aggressive and/
> or self-injurious behavior may be present. Persons with autism may
> exhibit repeated body movements (hand flapping, rocking), unusual
> responses to people or attachments to objects and resistance to
> changes in routines."
>
> Now, what we're going to do here is examine how Brock responded to
> people on a recent thread, which is pretty much how he always does it,
> and then I will re-post a segment from the movie _Rain Man_, about an
> autistic man played by Dustin Hoffman named Raymond.
>
> ---
>
> From the science fiction story thread:
>
> Brock: Not a particularly great story.
>
> Drafterman (making fun of something Brock has repeated a million
> times): Its objective truth is independent of your beliefs.
>
> Brock: My point was that its not a particularly great story.
>
> bonfly: Its objective wonderfulness lies beyond Brock's capacity to
> understand.
>
> Brock: I prefer the Bible.
>
> Drafterman: Its objective greatness is independent of your beliefs.
>
> Brock: I prefer the Bible.
>
> Drafterman (still miming Brock): Its objective greatness in excess of
> that of the Bible is independent
> of your preferences.
>
> Brock: Just pointing out that I prefer the Bible. :)
>
> rappoccio: Still pointing out that the stories are identical.
>
> Brock: I prefer the Bible.
>
> ---
>
> From _Rain Man_:
>
> Raymond: These are not boxer shorts. Mine are boxer shorts. These are
> Hanes 32.
>
> Charlie: Underwear is underwear, Ray.
>
> Raymond: My boxer shorts have my name and it says Raymond.
>
> Charlie: All right, when we pass the store, we'll pick you up a pair
> of boxer shorts.
>
> Raymond: I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.
>
> Charlie: We're not going back to Cincinnati, Ray, so don't even start
> with that.
>
> Raymond: Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart.
>
> Charlie: [Pulls over, gets out of the car and yells] WHAT DIFFERENCE
> DOES IT MAKE WHERE YOU BUY UNDERWEAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
> UNDERWEAR IS UNDERWEAR! IT IS UNDERWEAR WHEREVER YOU BUY IT! IN
> CINCINNATI OR WHEREVER!
>
> Raymond: K-Mart!
>
> Charlie: You know what I think, Ray? I think this autism is a bunch of
> shit! Because you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!
>
> Raymond: Boxer shorts. K-Mart!
>
> ---
>
> Now, obviously Deidzoeb if he's reading will bitch about how this is
> politically incorrect towards autistic people and blah blah blah, but
> hopefully his mouth is a little preoccupied with Mike's dick at the
> moment. You've got to admit the resemblance here is uncanny. What do
> you think, guys? Is Broke Organ autistic?

Does he know what time Jeopardy starts?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's the point of creating a large Universe if mankind is so small?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/95862e4fa0ef76fb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 5:58 pm
From: LL

On Mar 20, 1:37 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Millions? Try billions...

LL: I know, a million years here and a million years there and the
next thing you know you're talking about real time!

> On Mar 20, 10:23 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 9:36 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I know His reasons are a mystery, but they must have some sort of
> > > logic, no? What's the point of having so many galaxies if a Solar
> > > System would have been sufficient? Is God part of that Christian-
> > > American tendency to supersize everything? He probably got an
> > > intergalactic SUV to move around the whole Universe. And I can't even
> > > ride my bicycle in safety in my own neighborhood. Crazy world!
>
> > LL: Not only that, but why wait millions of years before creating man
> > to populate the universe? It's almost as if man were an afterthought
> > and that the universe was not created for man, after all.
>
> Millions? Try billions...
>
>
>
> > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:01 pm
From: ComandanteBanana

On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
> "ComandanteBanana" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b65d48f1-7479-4b19-99ba-29d791ba875e@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (This topic is rather phylosophical, what does the Universe got to do
> > with my own neighborhood? Well, it has to do with the nature of things
> > big and small, and why things are the way they are instead of the way
> > they ought to be... Or perhaps, like somebody appropriately said,
> > everything is the way it is... "To f... with our heads.")
>
> > I know His reasons are a mystery, but they must have some sort of
> > logic, no? What'sthe point of having so many galaxies if a Solar
> > System would have been sufficient?
>
> Perhaps He did it with ease - just to flatter us.
>
> BAM

Say it was easy, but don't call God frugal.

He was more wasteful than the current president. So it is that the
Christians are so indifferent about saving. God is extravagant --so
are his followers.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dev's Theist Strategy
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/8e44cb4c47df26d0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:02 pm
From: Dev

Having admittedly read probably hundreds of his posts (and I don't
reply to him anymore, either, and haven't for some time), I think
saying he's simply ignorant is giving him way too much credit. There
is something much more wrong with him than that.

On Mar 20, 10:05 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Keets' problem is that he's too ignorant to understand the limitations his
> ignorance places on him. That he thinks he's funny and thinks he's
> intellectually on par with others on this board is only more evidence of his
> ignorance. I got tired of his juvenile blathering sometime ago and plonked
> him.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Dev" <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:00 PM
> To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Dev's Theist Strategy
>
>
>
>
>
> > I still can't tell if Keith actually thinks he's funny or not. He's
> > only here to be a pest, so it is unlikely he's trying to make us laugh
> > with him. It's very possible he knows his jokes are, frankly, as
> > unfunny as jokes get and he just knows that bad, stupid jokes are
> > annoying.
>
> > On Mar 19, 12:37 pm, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 19, 11:46 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > It's important that your soul is recognized.
>
> >> Incredible. Do you actually think you're being smart/funny?
>
> >> Incredible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Totally Wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/36592cb0b39822f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:07 pm
From: slaytwist

Atheist's your wrong ! The only reason why YOU think there is no GOD
is because you dont want to believe it . - ( C.S. Lewis)

JUST A THOUGHT
If the world was created by a chemical reaction. Should'nt the Earth
me destroy by now because the compounds or chemicals that makes the
earth earth would'nt be stable for over 10 billion year +

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:12 pm
From: Dev

Let's see if you believe in God enough to stick around for debate. I
doubt you do.

On Mar 20, 7:07 pm, slaytwist <uj4...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> Atheist's your wrong ! The only reason why YOU think there is no GOD
> is because you dont want to believe it . - ( C.S. Lewis)
>
> JUST A THOUGHT
> If the world was created by a chemical reaction. Should'nt the Earth
> me destroy by now because the compounds or chemicals that makes the
> earth earth would'nt be stable for over 10 billion year +

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:15 pm
From: slaytwist

The only person your doubt is God

On Mar 20, 9:12 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Let's see if you believe in God enough to stick around for debate. I
> doubt you do.
>
> On Mar 20, 7:07 pm, slaytwist <uj4...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Atheist's your wrong ! The only reason why YOU think there is no GOD
> > is because you dont want to believe it . - ( C.S. Lewis)
>
> > JUST A THOUGHT
> > If the world was created by a chemical reaction. Should'nt the Earth
> > me destroy by now because the compounds or chemicals that makes the
> > earth earth would'nt be stable for over 10 billion year +- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Christianity impossible?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/170257e716c8e29a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 20 2008 6:11 pm
From: Dev

Didn't Simpleton just ask for an example apart from a supernatural
God?

On Mar 20, 1:09 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Simpleton wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 4:22�pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 19, 7:25�am, wiseclam <wisec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > There are claims of Christianity that are at best implausible but
> > > > might reasonably be described as impossible. �Consider these
> > > > clarifications:
>
> > > > --A square circle is impossible.
> > > > --The condition where adding 1 + 1 equals 3 is impossible.
>
> > > > --A talking fish is implausible.
> > > > --All the molecules in my desk moving in the same direction through
> > > > Brownian motion is implausible.
>
> > > > Is the idea of god more like the talking fish, merely implausible, or
> > > > is the Christian god impossible, like the square circle (e.g., all-
> > > > loving and all-powerful, yet fails to ease human suffering).
>
> > > > Christians - are you willing to admit that certain biblical claims
> > > > (perhaps even critical claims of the religion) are, at least,
> > > > implausible?
>
> > > For sure. �It not, if all our claims were just everyday ordinary
> > > occurances, then we would be no different than you. �There is, at
> > > least in my mind, no question that the supernatural claims of
> > > Christianity are, apart from belief in a supernatural God, very
> > > implausible
>
> > Can you give an example of such a claim? One that is apart from
> > belief in a supernatural God, and implausible?
>
> God- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Thursday, March 20, 2008

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links