Atheism vs Christianity: 25 new messages in 13 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AvC Chess challange!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/fa43a8718df5158d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 1:56 pm
From: Multiverse

Well Brock? Bring it on! Lets get away from the slappin each other
around for a spell.

On Mar 14, 11:59 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a fun and great idea! :)
>
> Brock
>
> On Mar 14, 8:18 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Kieth I noticed in one of your posts you claim to fancy a game of
> > chess. So I challenge. you can be white. number and record all
> > moves right here in this thread using algebraic, no time limits I
> > think we are both on here often enough to move the game along so
> > respond more than 1 time a day or not.
>
> > moves would look like this:
>
> > 1. e2 e4
>
> > 1. ...c5
>
> > Anyone else can feel free to kibitz right here in this thread. Also
> > anyone else who wants to challenge anyone else lets do it right
> > here.
>
> > I am certain that the atheist players with their superior skills of
> > intellect will triumph!
>
> > So Kieth, white to move, bring it on!
>
> > PS: I just thought this might be interesting. It is set up to be AvC,
> > but if it gets deleted I won't bitch or bring it up again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 1:59 pm
From: Multiverse

Spot on Drafty! I'd be surprised if someone does not step up. I mean
jeesh! It is still catagorized as a game and all.

On Mar 14, 12:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 12:30 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Too easy to cheat and rely on a computer. I prefer to play against my
> > computer, thank you, unless we meet and play chess in person -- and have a
> > couple of beers before the first pawn is taken. Also, I have some kind of
> > obsession in which I can't stand to play my computer except at the highest
> > level of skill. In about 10,000 games of chess against my computer I have
> > won once.
>
> Another excellent display of Christian logic. You don't want to play
> against him because he could cheat and use a computer, so instead
> you'll play against a computer.
>
> Fantastic.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/14/08, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Kieth I noticed in one of your posts you claim to fancy a game of
> > > chess. So I challenge. you can be white. number and record all
> > > moves right here in this thread using algebraic, no time limits I
> > > think we are both on here often enough to move the game along so
> > > respond more than 1 time a day or not.
>
> > > moves would look like this:
>
> > > 1. e2 e4
>
> > > 1. ...c5
>
> > > Anyone else can feel free to kibitz right here in this thread. Also
> > > anyone else who wants to challenge anyone else lets do it right
> > > here.
>
> > > I am certain that the atheist players with their superior skills of
> > > intellect will triumph!
>
> > > So Kieth, white to move, bring it on!
>
> > > PS: I just thought this might be interesting. It is set up to be AvC,
> > > but if it gets deleted I won't bitch or bring it up again.
>
> > --
> > Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 1:59 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Well Brock? Bring it on! Lets get away from the slappin each other
> around for a spell.

Sounds good. Who goes first?

Brock

>
>
> On Mar 14, 11:59 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What a fun and great idea! :)
> >
> > Brock
> >
> > On Mar 14, 8:18 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Kieth I noticed in one of your posts you claim to fancy a game of
> > > chess. So I challenge. you can be white. number and record all
> > > moves right here in this thread using algebraic, no time limits I
> > > think we are both on here often enough to move the game along so
> > > respond more than 1 time a day or not.
> >
> > > moves would look like this:
> >
> > > 1. e2 e4
> >
> > > 1. ...c5
> >
> > > Anyone else can feel free to kibitz right here in this thread. Also
> > > anyone else who wants to challenge anyone else lets do it right
> > > here.
> >
> > > I am certain that the atheist players with their superior skills of
> > > intellect will triumph!
> >
> > > So Kieth, white to move, bring it on!
> >
> > > PS: I just thought this might be interesting. It is set up to be AvC,
> > > but if it gets deleted I won't bitch or bring it up again.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

--
--- brockorgan@gmail.com ---
"This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:03 pm
From: "zencycle"

IS this to be a public spectacle, or are you two going to take it outside?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brock Organ" <brockorgan@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:59 PM
To: <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: AvC Chess challange!

>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Well Brock? Bring it on! Lets get away from the slappin each other
>> around for a spell.
>
> Sounds good. Who goes first?
>
> Brock
>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 14, 11:59 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What a fun and great idea! :)
>> >
>> > Brock
>> >
>> > On Mar 14, 8:18 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Kieth I noticed in one of your posts you claim to fancy a game of
>> > > chess. So I challenge. you can be white. number and record all
>> > > moves right here in this thread using algebraic, no time limits I
>> > > think we are both on here often enough to move the game along so
>> > > respond more than 1 time a day or not.
>> >
>> > > moves would look like this:
>> >
>> > > 1. e2 e4
>> >
>> > > 1. ...c5
>> >
>> > > Anyone else can feel free to kibitz right here in this thread. Also
>> > > anyone else who wants to challenge anyone else lets do it right
>> > > here.
>> >
>> > > I am certain that the atheist players with their superior skills of
>> > > intellect will triumph!
>> >
>> > > So Kieth, white to move, bring it on!
>> >
>> > > PS: I just thought this might be interesting. It is set up to be
>> AvC,
>> > > but if it gets deleted I won't bitch or bring it up again.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --- brockorgan@gmail.com ---
> "This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG
>
> >
>

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:07 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:03 PM, zencycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> IS this to be a public spectacle, or are you two going to take it outside?

I would prefer the public to have their spectacle :)

Regards,

Brock

>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Brock Organ" <brockorgan@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:59 PM
> To: <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [AvC] Re: AvC Chess challange!
>
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Well Brock? Bring it on! Lets get away from the slappin each other
> >> around for a spell.
> >
> > Sounds good. Who goes first?
> >
> > Brock
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 14, 11:59 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > What a fun and great idea! :)
> >> >
> >> > Brock
> >> >
> >> > On Mar 14, 8:18 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Kieth I noticed in one of your posts you claim to fancy a game of
> >> > > chess. So I challenge. you can be white. number and record all
> >> > > moves right here in this thread using algebraic, no time limits I
> >> > > think we are both on here often enough to move the game along so
> >> > > respond more than 1 time a day or not.
> >> >
> >> > > moves would look like this:
> >> >
> >> > > 1. e2 e4
> >> >
> >> > > 1. ...c5
> >> >
> >> > > Anyone else can feel free to kibitz right here in this thread. Also
> >> > > anyone else who wants to challenge anyone else lets do it right
> >> > > here.
> >> >
> >> > > I am certain that the atheist players with their superior skills of
> >> > > intellect will triumph!
> >> >
> >> > > So Kieth, white to move, bring it on!
> >> >
> >> > > PS: I just thought this might be interesting. It is set up to be
> >> AvC,
> >> > > but if it gets deleted I won't bitch or bring it up again.- Hide
> >> quoted text -
> >> >
> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
>
> > --- brockorgan@gmail.com ---
> > "This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> >
>

--
--- brockorgan@gmail.com ---
"This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:14 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

Well, if I get to go first, here's my move:

1. g3

Regards,

Brock

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Well Brock? Bring it on! Lets get away from the slappin each other
> > around for a spell.
>
> Sounds good. Who goes first?
>
> Brock
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mar 14, 11:59 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What a fun and great idea! :)
> > >
> > > Brock
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 8:18 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Kieth I noticed in one of your posts you claim to fancy a game of
> > > > chess. So I challenge. you can be white. number and record all
> > > > moves right here in this thread using algebraic, no time limits I
> > > > think we are both on here often enough to move the game along so
> > > > respond more than 1 time a day or not.
> > >
> > > > moves would look like this:
> > >
> > > > 1. e2 e4
> > >
> > > > 1. ...c5
> > >
> > > > Anyone else can feel free to kibitz right here in this thread. Also
> > > > anyone else who wants to challenge anyone else lets do it right
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > > I am certain that the atheist players with their superior skills of
> > > > intellect will triumph!
> > >
> > > > So Kieth, white to move, bring it on!
> > >
> > > > PS: I just thought this might be interesting. It is set up to be AvC,
> > > > but if it gets deleted I won't bitch or bring it up again.- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --- brockorgan@gmail.com ---
> "This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG
>

--
--- brockorgan@gmail.com ---
"This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Young earth, etc.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/211066d6bcca5e2d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 1:57 pm
From: wiseclam

On Mar 13, 11:03 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The history we get from the Bible dates to before the earth was created.

And about how long ago was that?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reasons to beleive in God: a response to a challenge from Dave /
Observer / Pschonomist
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/93caff24dbc39583?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 1:57 pm
From: "zencycle"

From: "WVProfessor" <august04@verizon.net>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Reasons to beleive in God: a response to a challenge from
Dave / Observer / Pschonomist

> populated, it is quite reasonable to view our habitat as a statistical
> freak and us as freaks.

oh, great. Now even atheists are calling me a statistical freak.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:19 pm
From: Simpleton

On Mar 14, 1:57 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: "WVProfessor" <augus...@verizon.net>
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Reasons to beleive in God: a response to a challenge from
> Dave / Observer / Pschonomist
>
> > populated, it is quite reasonable to view our habitat as a statistical
> > freak and us as freaks.
>
> oh, great. Now even atheists are calling me a statistical freak.

You deserve that universal accolade, funk. You earned it.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 1:58 pm
From: Simpleton

Often Christians--mostly those who are a little averse to those "eye
for an eye" sort of thing--offer a reason why it is no longer
necessary for them to follow the OT Law.

Fulfillment, they say. Jesus apparently fulfilled it, whatever that
means. My understanding was that Jesus made it so that the OT Law is
no longer binding on those who accept him.

Whatever that means.

I think I can find a couple of verses to be of relevance, so let's
examine them:

Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18;&version=31;
(Copyright acknowledged)

17 is clear. Jesus has come to fulfill the Law and not to abolish it.

18 is clear as well.

That is, until

1. heaven and earth disappear, and (notice AND, and not OR)
2. everything is accomplished (whatever everything is)

the Law stays exactly where it is, in its full form. No exceptions.

Dunno about heaven (my Meade telescope is broken, and NASA unjustly
denied my application to use that Hubble thingy, again), but Earth has
not disappeared.

So Christians, why exactly are you disobeying Jesus by not stoning
women for adultery or putting homosexuals to death?

And on a secondary note, what exactly is fulfillment, and how do you
know Jesus fulfilled it -- he only says he came to fulfill it?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:09 pm
From: wiseclam

Great post!

And if you Christians don't mind, when answering can you also explain
why certain OT laws ARE still in effect (even though Jesus "fulfilled"
them) and why they are so often referenced? I'm thinking about the
Ten Commandments, homosexuality is an abomination, etc.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Practical challenge for Evolution?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/f0fabd4856b49b53?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:33 pm
From: Walt

On Mar 14, 6:19 am, chazworth <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Okay Walt - So what is your alternative view.
> How you YOU account for the Origin of Species???
> Any Ideas that you think would be worth looking at?
> Or are you just blowing the throth of your pint?

First of all, since accusations are common in this
group that one is being evasive, let me say I have
no serious alternative view. I cannot explain the
origin of species anywhere near as well as I can
how I got to work this morning.

I do not see how a person can be open-minded
without having the notion of level of belief. Here
are some things that I have some level of
belief in, from highest to lowest:

1. That I exist.
2. That there is a hot, yellow thing in the
sky about half the time.
3. That I'm on a roughly spherical thing
called planet Earth.
4. That the Earth is in what we call the
Solar System and the hot, yellow thing
is the Sun.
5. Newtonian Mechanics for most practical
purposes.
6. General Theory of Relativity.
7. That all life on Earth descended from
single-celled organisms.
8. That the variations of living organisms
resulted from genetic mutation caused
only by chance and natural law.
9. That single-celled organisms arose
from non-living matter again caused only
by chance and natural law.
10. That there may be some sort of
deity.
11. That this deity may have
planned/caused in some way
certain events: appearance of life,
appearance of humans, positive
aspects of religions.
12. That there may be some sort of
life after death.

> On Mar 12, 7:08 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 2:38 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > From: "finbar" <pipp...@juno.com>
> > > Subject: [AvC] Re: Practical challenge for Evolution?
>
> > > > I'm guessing that your point here is that with enough time, evolution
> > > > is capable of making these changes.
>
> > > yes
>
> > > > This seems to me to be a
> > > > qualitative statement and not a quantitative argument.
>
> > > No, the quantitative aspect has been established with forensic anthropology.
>
> > > > And I don't
> > > > know how increasing the time to millions of years helps with writing
> > > > all this ultra-complex biological code that,
>
> > > That's _you're_ problem. I see it as a limitation from veiwing life through
> > > your god prism
>
> > > >> > sciences would never get away with showing a couple of closely spaced
> > > >> > data points and then extrapolating a line out beyond the end of the
> > > >> > graph.
>
> > > >> 1), they can and do.
>
> > > > Which ones do you mean?
>
> > > Science in general. A scientist sees what he thinks is a trend, and develops
> > > theory and experiments to try a validate his hypothesis. It's the very
> > > nature of science.
>
> > > > But we're discussing current speciation examples here. And by
> > > > definition, if they're current then they're all grouped closely
> > > > together, compared to the vast timeline you just mentioned. So again,
> > > > science can comment on this ability of organisms to change and adapt
> > > > in small ways, but telling us what happened ten million years in the
> > > > past or future is philosophical.
>
> > > They're grouped closely together within a specific genus, but comparing the
> > > trends of different species show the convergence within that genus. Those
> > > trends all come together and form that 'tree' that evoluntists are so fond
> > > of. There fore, it's entire possible - without philosphy - to give a
> > > reasonable vision of the history of evolution.
>
> > Common descent by itself doesn't prove Darwin's Theory of
> > Evolution (random variation + natural selection).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:41 pm
From: chazworth

On Mar 14, 9:33 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 6:19 am, chazworth <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay Walt - So what is your alternative view.
> > How you YOU account for the Origin of Species???
> > Any Ideas that you think would be worth looking at?
> > Or are you just blowing the throth of your pint?
>
> First of all, since accusations are common in this
> group that one is being evasive, let me say I have
> no serious alternative view. I cannot explain the
> origin of species anywhere near as well as I can
> how I got to work this morning.
>
> I do not see how a person can be open-minded
> without having the notion of level of belief. Here
> are some things that I have some level of
> belief in, from highest to lowest:
>
> 1. That I exist.
> 2. That there is a hot, yellow thing in the
> sky about half the time.
> 3. That I'm on a roughly spherical thing
> called planet Earth.
> 4. That the Earth is in what we call the
> Solar System and the hot, yellow thing
> is the Sun.
> 5. Newtonian Mechanics for most practical
> purposes.
> 6. General Theory of Relativity.
> 7. That all life on Earth descended from
> single-celled organisms.
> 8. That the variations of living organisms
> resulted from genetic mutation caused
> only by chance and natural law.
> 9. That single-celled organisms arose
> from non-living matter again caused only
> by chance and natural law.
> 10. That there may be some sort of
> deity.
> 11. That this deity may have
> planned/caused in some way
> certain events: appearance of life,
> appearance of humans, positive
> aspects of religions.
> 12. That there may be some sort of
> life after death.

Well I think you loose me at point 10. I would go so far as to say
that point 7,8, & 9 sort of remove the need for 10, 11 and 12.

I think you need to study more on the possibility of 7,8, & 9 because
it seems clear to me that you are lacking in some basic knowledge in
this area.
Ignorance is not a crime, however, and this is not an accusation. Take
a look at my other postings on this topic to see where I am coming
from.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Excerpt from American Atheist website
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/44e1b95f90204a15?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:36 pm
From: chazworth

On Mar 14, 7:18 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 1:43 am, chazworth <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What is thought to be supernatural are simply> phenomena that are not understood.
>
> LL: Also a lot of the explanations set forth to explain those
> misundertood phenomena.

Not quite. I am arguing that nothing is actually supernatural. The
explanations of things called supernatural are delusional, inaccurate,
mythical, imaginative, speculative, and almost never in line with what
is real.

>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 4:53 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Har! Wouldn't want to resolve supernatural phenomenon with a supernatural
> > > explanation? Perhaps words like mundane, banal, trite and hackneyed appeal
> > > more to your mindset.
>
> > Actually not. What you really want to do is to explain "supernatural"
> > with natural phenomena and natural explainations. That is what science
> > has been doing successfully for 2000 years. The difficulty seems to be
> > in the term "supernatural". If reality is natural then there can be no
> > supernatural phenomena - indeed such a term is self contrdictory. What
> > is going on here is a confusion between the noumenal world (that world
> > that cannot be directly perceived with the senses) and the poor
> > explanations of it by attributing that which we do not understand to
> > the "supernatural". What is thought to be supernatural are simply
> > phenomena that are not understood.
>
> > > On 3/13/08, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm against any system that seeks to solve metaphysical problems with
> > > > mysticism and/or places whim over reason.
>
> > > > Religion is the best example. It is the denial of reality in favor of
> > > > fantasy, and has been degrading the human mind for far too long.
>
> > > > It is important that people who feel as I do whatever they can to
> > > > reveal religion as the horrible fraud it is. Participation in this
> > > > group, though not capable of far-reaching results, is a great way for
> > > > us to refine our arguments against this poisonous nonsense.
>
> > > > People like Observer in this group are not guilty of hyperbole:
> > > > religion is disgusting filth. Witness the subjugation of the human
> > > > being by the rumoured whims of mythical characters. It's disgusting.
>
> > > > </rant>
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 3:05 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > There are a lot of regulars on this board that are in fact against
> > > > religion
> > > > > as an entity. I'll let them speak for themselves. I'm against any
> > > > religion
> > > > > that established itself as a hierarchy, where the followers must submit
> > > > to
> > > > > the officials in the church as a condition of membership. Catholicism,
> > > > > Mormonism, jehovahs fucking witness, anglicans, baptists.....Any
> > > > religion
> > > > > where they claim the authority of excommunication - or whatever their
> > > > > version of it is.... Since religions are created by man, it's not
> > > > practical
> > > > > in most cases to distinguish between the the religion and the religious.
> > > > > Religion is by and large created as a tool to control it's followers,
> > > > > Therefore, to me, the two are indistiguishable.
>
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > > From: "bob600" <b...@nireland.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:25 PM
> > > > > To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: [AvC] Re: Excerpt from American Atheist website
>
> > > > > > On 12 Mar, 21:18, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> From: "bob600" <b...@nireland.com>
> > > > > >> Subject: [AvC] Re: Excerpt from American Atheist website
>
> > > > > >> > An atheist does not oppose religion he opposes
> > > > > >> > the religious, religion on its own is harmless its the religious
> > > > that
> > > > > >> > are dangerous.
>
> > > > > >> You're gonna get an argument here over that line. Not from me, I'll
> > > > just
> > > > > >> say
> > > > > >> I disagree and leave it at that.
>
> > > > > > Bob600 replies:- I will try and survive. However, you don't state what
> > > > > > you disagree with, are you saying that an atheist does not oppose the
> > > > > > religious, or that he only opposes religion, or both? (if its both
> > > > > > then I am only half wrong) And in what way is "religion" more
> > > > > > dangerous than its "so called" believers?
>
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is the Garden of Eden a sexual metaphor?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/9b0448d3d4f7d7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:42 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Mar 14, 3:34 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 5:08 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 1:45 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 1:53 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Controlling people's sexual activity is the ultimate way of
> > > controlling people.
>
> > > This is why it's so important in the Bible.
>
> > > LL: For the same reason it's also important to politicians.
>
> > I think what you're referring to here, LL, is things like anti-
> > abortion legislation?
>
> > If so, absolutely! If not, I don't understand what you mean so perhaps
> > you could explain?
>
> LL: What I mean is that polticians as well as church leaders use the
> bible to control people, but not only for legislation about sex. And,
> yes, they all use it to advance anti-abortion legislation--something I
> prefer to call forced childbirth legislation.

Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification and yes absolutely true.

>
>
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 12:02 pm, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 13, 11:28 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 13, 10:07 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Gemini, we must be aware of who's who in the jungle, but we also have
> > > > > > > take into account that the jungle modifies the behavior of many
> > > > > > > species, often making them skeptics or survivors.
>
> > > > > > Agreed. The monkeys however are natural skeptics and survivors. It's
> > > > > > our nature.
>
> > > > > > We are very social and inclusive though and welcome the modified
> > > > > > animals into our circle with lots of bananas.
>
> > > > > Yep, welcome to the jungle, but only banana-eating lions allowed. ;)
>
> > > > > > > Here's a friend who owns two rats, but still is optimist of finding
> > > > > > > some humanity in them. I hope you agree with his optimism too...
>
> > > > > > I am to a point, however, it's important to remember the story of the
> > > > > > "Tender woman and the snake" as well in order to maintain perspective.
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imoQS5j9TwI
>
> > > > > True. I had a woman who bit me once very badly, and then played
> > > > > camouflage to get me back because she needed me. But I say, "NEVER
> > > > > TRUST THE BEAST!"
>
> > > > Lol. Agreed. I learned that one the hard way too.
>
> > > > > > > And I believe that the fact that the Greeks created democracy and that
> > > > > > > they had very liberal views about sexuality is more than a historical
> > > > > > > coincidence. Religious censorship and democracy are at odds.
>
> > > > > > Interesting point. That connection had never occurred to me but it
> > > > > > certainly makes sense!
>
> > > > > Certainly a warmongering society while punishing sexual sin passing
> > > > > for Christian doesn't make sense to me.
>
> > > > Sex is something that is very core to us.
>
> > > > Controlling people's sexual activity is the ultimate way of
> > > > controlling people.
>
> > > > This is why it's so important in the Bible.
>
> > > > > > > "In the Gospels, Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality. And he
> > > > > > > seldom even discusses sexual sin. In contrast, the Gospels are full of
> > > > > > > Jesus' teachings against self-righteousness, greed, pride, bigotry,
> > > > > > > sexism, racism, and hypocrisy. Like Amos and Isaiah before him, Jesus
> > > > > > > roundly condemns the rich and powerful who exploit, cheat, or ignore
> > > > > > > the poor. For Jesus, immorality had much more to do with economic
> > > > > > > injustice than with sex. He taught a morality of love."
>
> > > > > > >http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/homosex2.htm
>
> > > > > > Not really. This is an interpretation. Depending on what section
> > > > > > you're reading in the Bible, Jesus goes from being almost a monkey to
> > > > > > very clearly a lion.
>
> > > > > God was a lion in the Old Testament, and then in the New Testament
> > > > > send his son, a monkey into the world.
>
> > > > I don't agree. Jesus was a Lion in monkey's clothing. One minute peace
> > > > is preached the next minute threats of being sent to hell.
>
> > > > > Playing the victim is important in the jungle too. It makes you look
> > > > > good. Many lions are camouflaged in religion.
>
> > > > Yes, not all Lions are religious, but most of the religious leaders,
> > > > if not all, are Lions.
>
> > > > > > The Bible's very contradictory.
>
> > > > > I'm aware of that. Some Christians read polyamore into it, but at
> > > > > least they don't harm no one.
>
> > > > > > > Actually, I propose a "Dutch Package," where issues normal to the
> > > > > > > Dutch --gay rights, bike facilities, prostitution and marihuana-- are
> > > > > > > discussed in less open societies.
>
> > > > > > Yes true. When you stop saying No some things don't matter anymore.
>
> > > > > > I used that approach with my kids. Rarely said no, just accomodated.
>
> > > > > > My daughter wanted to wear make-up to school when she was 6 so I
> > > > > > bought her kid's makeup. Now she's confident enough not to wear it or
> > > > > > wear it. Doesn't matter to her.
>
> > > > > > It works.
>
> > > > > It makes sense. I bet when soft drugs are readily available fewer
> > > > > people even care about them. And the rats have to look for other way
> > > > > to make a living. LESS CRIME.
>
> > > > The Dutch have proven that to be the case.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is God gay?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c6157c31be96e2b7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:45 pm
From: donquijote1954

On Mar 14, 5:09 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> Gay. Very, very gay.
>
> Proof: When he was lonely, he created a MAN. Only after that man
> turned out to be straight did God create a woman.
>
> QED

Makes sense. And then Adam and Eve had two children, both male...

I see a pattern here.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:51 pm
From: Brock

On Mar 14, 4:06 pm, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Don't ask me for proof of it because much of his personal life is a
> mystery, "in a closet," so to speak... He's certainly not heterosexual
> because there are no goddesses in the Christian faith as in other
> religions. He lives alone, we assume. And if he was straight he could
> have fathered Adam and Eve instead of making them out of dust. What do
> you think?

I'm not very impressed.

Regards,

Brock

>
> WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:54 pm
From: donquijote1954

I know it must be shocking to some, but the truth will make you
free. ;)

On Mar 14, 5:51 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 4:06 pm, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Don't ask me for proof of it because much of his personal life is a
> > mystery, "in a closet," so to speak... He's certainly not heterosexual
> > because there are no goddesses in the Christian faith as in other
> > religions. He lives alone, we assume. And if he was straight he could
> > have fathered Adam and Eve instead of making them out of dust. What do
> > you think?
>
> I'm not very impressed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
>
>
>
>
> > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What if she said "no" to the serpent?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/dbc62f82ba950257?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:47 pm
From: "zencycle"

A related blog I found.

http://collegecallgirl.blogspot.com/2008/03/hot-for-jesus.html

This is one of the comments:

"Counselor: Miss, I'd like you to show me on this anatomically correct Bible
doll just where...exactly... you were touched by the Lord."

--------------------------------------------------
From: "ComandanteBanana" <nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:31 PM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: What if she said "no" to the serpent?

>
> It means Adam was the victim of the temptation, while Eve committed
> the "evil" of being the vehicle.
>
> Don't ask me for the logic of it, just Christian values. Notice the
> serpent could have waited for Adam and Eve to be together or try to
> tempt Adam first, but chose to catch Eve alone. The Devil must have
> figured she was easy prey.
>
> I don't know why such is case when so many women play hard to
> catch. ;)
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atheists & Believers
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/e2f4ca21323d4fb9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:49 pm
From: "wisdom812@gmail.com"

The typical ( I like my box can't see and do not want to see
beyond my nose ) Atheist responses. " Stupid is as stupid goes "
Forrest Gump . Atheists are spiritually empty, void and stupid and
refuse to be cognizant of SELF because they believe themselves to be
intellectual Gods to the " weak minded " as chazworth has chosen to
say.
Anger , Greed and Ego is the character of your responses and you think
yourselves strong minded?? Can't wait to see your pale faces when you
crossover and get home my brothers and sisters. Oh Yeah !

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

On Mar 14, 4:28 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheists & Believers
>
>
>
> > I've heard a Christian claim that there's no astral travel but I
> > haven't heard an atheist claim that there is no God.
>
> There is no god.
>
> Now you have.
>
> CAN I GET AN AAAAMEN?!?!!?!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:54 pm
From: Simpleton

On Mar 14, 2:49 pm, "wisdom...@gmail.com" <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> " Stupid is as stupid goes "
> Forrest Gump .

Quite telling that you'd

a. Quote Forrest Gump
b. Botch up the quote

You sound very bitter. Is it because you know that your god does not
exist?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 3:06 pm
From: "zencycle"

From: <wisdom812@gmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheists & Believers

> The typical ( I like my box can't see and do not want to see
> beyond my nose ) Atheist responses. " Stupid is as stupid goes "
> Forrest Gump .

1) the quote is "stupid is as stupid does". Exemplified by your posts.

2) It's funny hearing a theist complain about atheists being closed minded,
when they haven't seen the light of day since they shoved their head up gods
ass.

> Atheists are spiritually empty, void and stupid and
> refuse to be cognizant of SELF because they believe themselves to be
> intellectual Gods to the " weak minded " as chazworth has chosen t

I can't speak for every one, but I think it's safe to we aren't really
interested in the SELF kool-aid you're peddling.

> Anger , Greed and Ego is the character of your responses and you think
> yourselves strong minded??

And this post is an example of your happiness, altruism, and humility?

> Can't wait to see your pale faces when you
> crossover and get home my brothers and sisters. Oh Yeah !

You'll be in for a long wait. Don't hold your breath. Oh, wait, on second
thought, _do_ hold your breath. Start now.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: new memebr
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3d9e3c5676223a97?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 2:53 pm
From: Zaraiya

haha.

Peter Wentz, bass guitar for Fall Out Boy, said that once...

he's apparently short as guys go and people think he's f***ing ugly.
all there is to it really.
i just found the quote funny :)

On Mar 14, 3:34 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hello! Pete Wentz,
>
> Are you a short fugly? and what is that exactly? Welcome!
>
> On Mar 13, 10:49 pm, Zaraiya <societysrebell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > i am a new member too :)
>
> > Zaraiya
>
> > On Mar 13, 5:05 pm, CMKONDOTTY <cmkondo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://vazikatti.blogspot.com/
>
> > > I am new member
>
> > > please welcome me
> > > cmkondotty
>
> > >http://vazikatti.blogspot.com/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Good Collection of Important Websites[My First Post]
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/a11c7443afd9c833?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 3:03 pm
From: Sonia

Dear Friends,

This is my first post in the group, so would like to Introduce myself as
Sonia, and also would like to share something nice with all of you below as
a symbol of Good Will.

Here is a new website from Rapid Mile <http://www.rapidmile.com/>, which has
links to all daily use Important Websites.

http://ihome.rapidmile.com

I recommend you to put it as your HOME PAGE and take use of it daily.

Note: Essential for people who wants to get more work done in less time.

Also feel free to forward this mail to your friends!

Regards,
Sonia <http://www.rapidmile.com>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Everyone talks about a god no one will offer reasons to believe in it.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/41a1d21343bdaf7e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2008 3:07 pm
From: Multiverse

> > you did not answer this. Does the church make decisions? who locked
> > Galileo up? was it the church or their god?
>
> me: To help you recollect -
>
> me:
>
> > > > > > me: These passages describe consequences of sins. It is inevitable
> > > > > > that your descendants face the consequences of your actions. This is
> > > > > > how the world is!

to help you recollect, you still didn't answer. shit head (since you
decided that when your called on your bullshit, and you have no other
schuck and jive to offer, youll break out the name calling, then
cool! Just remember you started it)

> but obviously, you had little inkling on what discussion was going
> about before you butted in.

this how many replies back and forth now? 3? 4? suddenly your gonna
piss and moan that I butt in? My 6 year old would say "do you want me
to call the WAMBULANCE?"

Great tactic you have here. can't take the heat so start pissing and
moaning!

> me: well mofo, I was talking about your easy use of 'about murdered'
> when there is little reason to believe that the church authorities
> ever wanted to MURDER Galileo.

Well MOTHERFUCKER! HA HA I LIKE THAT YOUVE OPENED THIS UP TO SUCH
FUN! The church authorities clearly did want to murder Galileo! You
twit! Even kids know he was made to publicly retract his theories or
DIE! Perhaps you should publicly retract your bullshit! You must be
fucking bi-polar or something. One post you admit your full of shit
and the next you act like a fuck face. At least that would put your
crap into perspective.

And you brought in church authorities
> when the discussion was about the judgement by God. And who judged
> Galileo - why blame God for that ?

Because the stupid fuck faces were wanting to MURDER Galileo in the
name of your stupid fucking god asshole! That's why! And don't
forget you bipolar fuckstick, that you said this:

> > > > me: The judgement is given by God not the church btw before you get
> > > > carried away.

so who the fuck did judge Galileo? Really? Since you point a finger
from each hand at both of these and try to claim no one judged him?
So why don't you just not answer the question since that's what you
want to do anyway. At least with your poles in the current
configuration. I gave you a reference which proves my assertion so
take it up with the author or stop lying about it.

> Firstly you had no idea about an ongoing discussion. You made a
> totally irrelevant post of church authorities persecuting Galileo and
> when I tried to clarify, you jump on me and keep pricking at the same
> point.

You could have pissed and moaned several posts back. You didn't and
since I pressed you for an answer your squealing like a pig.

But here is how it went so you can understand because you obviously
don't or your just lying again.

>Again, using the killing of unborn babies as an example of how
social
> values are eroded, I want _again_ to point to the three aforementioned
> examples of high moral standards that are to be learnt from the
> bible:

> 1) "Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers;
> Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world
> with tyrants." (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

> 2) "The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children
> will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived.
> Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from
> you." (Excerpt from Hosea 9 NLT)

> 3) "Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their
> little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their
> homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.
> For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver
> or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the
> young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies
> and will show no compassion for the children." (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
> ...or perhaps these passages are purely metaphorical?

Your reply>>>>>>
>me: These passages describe consequences of sins. It is inevitable
>that your descendants face the consequences of your actions. This is
>how the world is! The mom smokes and the baby has birth
>defects............. you pollute and your children suffer......but
>remember that these prophecies are changable if the people repent as
>in the case of Jonah.

Here is exactly what I responded to and you can easily see how I am
expanding on your own theory that "It is inevitable that your
descendants face the consequences of your actions. This is how the
world works!"

> me: These passages describe consequences of sins. It is inevitable
> that your descendants face the consequences of your actions. This is
> how the world is!

See that statement above that I am referencing? If you don't like the
consequences of your theories don't fucking say them ass wipe!

See my response below to see that I am addressing your specific
fucking statement.

>Indeed. consequences for actions. What a novel thought process you
>have going on there. Galileo is almost murdered and luckily only gets
>imprisoned by church. 500 years later the church apologizes!
>Consequences for actions indeed.

see above how I show how your theory actually works? Yes. Galileo
would have been murdered by your church. Your church apologized for
its actions in the early 1990's. About 500 years later. Apparently
that is how the world works for you christian fucking whackadoos!

> > The Complete Idiots Guide to Understanding Einstein, 2004, 2 ed. by
> > Gary F. Moring, ISBN:1-59257-185-9 chap 3 pg 35 paragraph 1.
>
> me: talk about hypocrisy shithead. Were't you the one cribbing about
> me concluding from a book.

my conclusion is well founded and supported by a direct reference to a
book, page, and paragraph. Go read it and you will see that it says
exactly what I claim it says. Galileo would have been murdered by
your church had he not recanted his theories! Choke on it biotch!
Your version is to say "read the book and make the same conclusion as
me". Crock a shit fuck!

> me: again shithead, reason/knowledge is dependent on point of view of
> the people. What is reasonable to one is superstition to another.

Nope! Wrong again dick breath! sprinkle all the fairy dust you want
on the word. It still does not mean what your bipolar delusional shit
fer brain is tellin ya.

On Mar 14, 12:13 pm, Leslie <leslie.m.abra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 3:05 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > so the church makes no judgements? really? so god told the church
> > > > to lock Galileo up?
>
> > you did not answer this. Does the church make decisions? who locked
> > Galileo up? was it the church or their god?
>
> me: To help you recollect -
>
> me:
>
> > > > > > me: These passages describe consequences of sins. It is inevitable
> > > > > > that your descendants face the consequences of your actions. This is
> > > > > > how the world is!
>
> you:
>
> > > > > Indeed. consequences for actions. What a novel thought process you
> > > > > have going on there. Galileo is almost murdered and luckily only gets
> > > > > imprisoned by church.
>
> me: the consequences that I was talking about was delivered by God
> and not the church which I tried to say -
>
> > > > me: The judgement is given by God not the church btw before you get
> > > > carried away.
>
> but obviously, you had little inkling on what discussion was going
> about before you butted in.
>
>
>
> > > me: And you had no problem throwing around phrases like 'almost
> > > murdered' with little support or evidence.......
>
> > I apologize for the lack of citation here. I use the religious
> > transgressions against Galileo frequently because it is third grade
> > stuff. Your the first to even question that ever.
>
> me: well mofo, I was talking about your easy use of 'about murdered'
> when there is little reason to believe that the church authorities
> ever wanted to MURDER Galileo. And you brought in church authorities
> when the discussion was about the judgement by God. And who judged
> Galileo - why blame God for that ?
>
> Firstly you had no idea about an ongoing discussion. You made a
> totally irrelevant post of church authorities persecuting galileo and
> when I tried to clarify, you jump on me and keep pricking at the same
> point.
>
>   So here is a
>
> > simple reference for you.
>
> > The Complete Idiots Guide to Understanding Einstein, 2004, 2 ed. by
> > Gary F. Moring, ISBN:1-59257-185-9 chap 3 pg 35 paragraph 1.
>
> me: talk about hypocrisy shithead. Were't you the one cribbing about
> me concluding from a book.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Its a real easy read you might enjoy it even if your not an idiot! If
> > you like physics as a spectator sport, its a fun book and kids love
> > it!
>
> > > me: nope. Just to make sure your priorities are right..........
>
> > thanks but Ill pass as i reject priorities set by a theist.
>
> > > me: sorry if I didnt make it clearer......Superstitions is a point of
> > > view.............what is superstitions to one may be 'facts confirmed
> > > by experience' to another........................
>
> > wrong again. try the wiki version it goes like this:
>
> > Superstition (Latin superstes, standing over) is a belief or notion,
> > not based on reason or knowledge,
>
> me: again shithead, reason/knowledge is dependent on point of view of
> the people. What is reasonable to one is superstition to another.
>
> in or of the ominous significance of
>
>
>
> > a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
>
> > what your talking about is just different superstitions. like your
> > religion. its a different superstitious belief than say,..... belief
> > in sun gods. But not terribly different and much more harmful.
>
> > So are you now ready to stand up for logic and reason and reject your
> > superstitious beliefs?
>
> > On Mar 13, 4:33 am, Leslie <leslie.m.abra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 7:55 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > me: The judgement is given by God not the church btw before you get
> > > > > carried away.
>
> > > > so the church makes no judgements? really? so god told the church
> > > > to lock Galileo up?
>
> > > > And the 'almost murdered' part was nice touch- a
>
> > > > > dramatic quality.
>
> > > > I note the sour mood that truth seems to put you in here. Not fond of
> > > > truthful statements?
>
> > > me: And you had no problem throwing around phrases like 'almost
> > > murdered' with little support or evidence.......
>
> > > > > me: chances are your descendants will suffer from the consequences of
> > > > > their own actions.....so you better be bothered about that.
>
> > > > did you have a point here? Or are you hoping something will bother
> > > > me?
>
> > > me: nope. Just to make sure your priorities are right..........
>
> > > > > me: I reject superstitious beliefs.............now define what is
> > > > > superstitious...............
>
> > > > really not up for word games. but let me know if you cant find a
> > > > dictionary. And after you have looked it up, let me know if my
> > > > statement does not seem to make sense to you and we can take it from
> > > > there.
>
> > > me: sorry if I did'nt make it clearer......Superstitions is a point of
> > > view.............what is superstitions to one may be 'facts confirmed
> > > by experience' to another........................
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 10:17 am, Leslie <leslie.m.abra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 12, 6:45 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > me: These passages describe consequences of sins. It is inevitable
> > > > > > > that your descendants face the consequences of your actions. This is
> > > > > > > how the world is!
>
> > > > > > Indeed. consequences for actions. What a novel thought process you
> > > > > > have going on there. Galileo is almost murdered and luckily only gets
> > > > > > imprisoned by church.
>
> > > > > me: The judgement is given by God not the church btw before you get
> > > > > carried away. And the 'almost murdered' part was nice touch- a
> > > > > dramatic quality.
>
> > > > >   500 years later the church apologizes!
>
> > > > > > Consequences for actions indeed.
>
> > > > > > I prefer that my descendants don't suffer due to continued
> > > > > > superstitious practices of the likes of you.
>
> > > > > me: chances are your descendants will suffer from the consequences of
> > > > > their own actions.....so you better be bothered about that.
>
> > > > >   Also you should not
>
> > > > > > leave it to your descendants to apologize for you. You can stand up
> > > > > > here and now and declare that you will embrace logic and reason and
> > > > > > reject superstitious beliefs for what they are.
>
> > > > > me: I reject superstitious beliefs.............now define what is
> > > > > superstitious...............
>
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 5:59 am, Leslie <leslie.m.abra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 11, 10:31 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 16:21, Leslie <leslie.m.abra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > me: the same reason why secular laws exist though most of them reflect
> > > > > > > > > contemporary moral standards.
>
> > > > > > > > So you say that religious laws equal secular laws? Are religious laws
> > > > > > > > voted upon in a democratic process and subject of continuous
> > > > > > > > improvement?
>
> > > > > > > > > me: nope. The reasons you gave - '* It feels good ,* It makes you
> > > > > > > > > happy * It is exploration of natural urges '- could be a good excuse
> > > > > > > > > for a rapist. Which shows that these reasons are not nearly enough.
>
> > > > > > > > Now you are outright lying:
>
> > > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 13:56, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > 2) When has religion ever encouraged young people to enjoy responsible
> > > > > > > > > sex (outside marriage) ?
>
> > > > > > > > to which you after some dodging ansked back:
> > > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 14:08, Leslie <leslie.m.abra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > me: you mean outside marriage......what good came of it...........
>
> > > > > > > > to which I replied
> > > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 14:57, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > If you don't know that, I'm not quite sure if it helps to answer, but
> > > > > > > > > I'll try:
> > > > > > > > > * It feels good
> > > > > > > > > * It makes you happy
> > > > > > > > > * It is exploration of natural urges
>
> > > > > > > > and here you suddenly discard my _obvious_ reference to responsible
> > > > > > > > sex!
>
> > > > > > > me: 'Responsible sex' is all great, but the trouble is when people get
> > > > > > > too involved with the 'feel good, feel happy and natural urges' part
> > > > > > > and the aspect of 'responsible' fades away. And remember that there
> > > > > > > are few secular laws regulating the 'responsible' part of sex (-
> > > > > > > except underage sex and rape). If you have strong laws governing
> > > > > > > violence and rape and still people do it, how much worse would it be
> > > > > > > for an issue that has few laws governing it!
>
> > > > > > > > If you are unable to follow the thread but willfully misinterpret what
> > > > > > > > I say, I see no point in continuing this discussion. It has been
> > > > > > > > interesting but I have no intention of spending the rest of the day
> > > > > > > > refuting false allegations from you.
>
> > > > > > > > Are you seriously saying that you do not understand that when I first
> > > > > > > > say "responible sex outside marriage", the "resonsible " part is
> > > > > > > > implied when I refer to it in later posts or do I have to rewrite the
> > > > > > > > whole post (and all the previous ones) to make a point?
>
> > > > > > > me: sorry if I did'nt make it clear, but you took the 'responsible'
> > > > > > > part for granted - our whole discussion was around how people are not
> > > > > > > responsible - how morality has to be enforced in most cases.........
>
> > > > > > > > Please let me know because in that case, I will skip this discussion
> > > > > > > > and find someone who is willing to debate honestly.
>
> > > > > > > > > me: showing how long held social values are eroded as we 'advance'.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- 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

Friday, March 14, 2008

25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links